behavioral ecology of the mariana crow (corvus kubaryi
TRANSCRIPT
Behavioral Ecology of the Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi): Age-related Foraging, Spatial
Behavior, Habitat Selection, and Correlates of First Year Survival
Sarah K. Faegre
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Washington
2017
Reading Committee:
Renee Robinette Ha, Chair
James Ha
Michael Beecher
Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
Psychology
©Copyright 2017
Sarah K. Faegre
University of Washington
Abstract
Behavioral Ecology of the Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi): Age-related Foraging, Spatial
Behavior, Habitat Selection, and Correlates of First Year Survival
Sarah K. Faegre
Chair of the Supervisory Committee:
Renee Robinette Ha
Psychology
There is little information on Mariana Crow foraging, spatial behavior, habitat selection,
or the correlates of first year survival, yet these topics of study are critical for management and
species recovery. In this work, we demonstrate that adult crows forage more frequently on hermit
crabs, which they process using complex behaviors, while fledglings rely more on fruits, and
insect larvae, which they procure and process with simple behaviors. Adults acquire more food
items from the ground than other ages due to their frequent predation of hermit crabs. We also
demonstrate that fledglings have reduced mobility during the first 4-10 weeks post-fledging and
that, after controlling for this low post-fledging mobility, sub-adult Mariana Crows range over
larger areas than fledglings and family groups. Regardless of age, Mariana Crows have dynamic,
shifting home ranges which lack stable boundaries. Mariana crow family groups have core areas
that they return to regularly, even as ranges shift. However, we found no evidence of habitat
differences in core areas, compared to infrequently used, outer portions of ranges. In our radio-
telemetry study of 22 fledglings, only 45% of individuals survived their first year and the
majority of deaths were ruled feral cat predations, based on the appearance of the remains.
Fledglings with shorter wings had reduced home ranges and daily movements, and lower first
year survival. These results highlight vulnerabilities resulting from foraging, spatial behavior,
and physical development at fledging. We emphasize the importance of learning in the
development of foraging behaviors, the need for habitat-wide predator management to improve
first year survival, and need for continued research into the mechanisms leading to poorly
developed fledglings with reduced first year survival.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Age-related diet and foraging behavior of the critically endangered Mariana
Crow (Corvus kubaryi)
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 4
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 11
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 20
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Chapter 2: Spatial Ecology of the Mariana Crow: A Radio-tracking Study
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 31
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 34
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 39
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 41
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 43
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter 3: Habitat Selection of the Mariana Crow
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 49
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 52
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 59
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Chapter 4: Correlates of First Year Survival in the Mariana Crow
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 65
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 67
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 71
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 74
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 75
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 79
References .................................................................................................................................. 80
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Frequency distribution of food categories for all ages combined .......................... 22
Figure 1.2: Percentage of food categories captured by wild fledglings, sub-adults, and adults 23
Figure 1.3: Percentage of food items captured from ground vs. above ground by wild
fledglings, sub-adults, and adults .................................................................................... 24
Figure 1.4: Percentage of food categories captured by wild and captive-reared crows ............. 25
Figure 1.5: Percentage of food items captured from ground vs. above ground by wild and
captive-reared crows ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.1: Home Range area by age class and days post-fledging or post-dispersal................. 43
Figure 2.2: Daily movements of fledglings and sub-adults by week post-fledging or dispersal 44
Figure 2.3: Mean daily movement distance of fledglings and sub-adults with and without the first
10 weeks post-fledgling................................................................................................... 44
Figure 2.4: Area of sequential 30-day home ranges over month post-fledging or post-
dispersal........................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 2.5: Overlap in sequential 30-day home range (within bird) over time post-fledging or
post-dispersal.................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 2.6: Home range area curves for the entire fledgling period............................................. 46
Figure 2.7: Area curves for sub-adults tracked during this study. Dashed lines are individuals that
were captured at an unknown age post dispersal (all others begin on day one post- natal
dispersal) .......................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 2.8: area curves during the sub-adult (above) and fledgling (below) periods at equal
scales................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 3.1: Pre-dispersal home ranges of Mariana Crow fledglings (above: neighboring family
groups; below: family group whose nest is outside of their 98% home range) ............. 62
Figure 3.2: Bait boxes at two plots............................................................................................. 63
Figure 4.1: 100% home range area (cumulative) in birds that survived versus died during their
first year post-fledging.................................................................................................... 75
Figure 4.2: 50% core area (cumulative) in birds that survived versus died during their first year
post-fledging.................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 4.3: Data-area curves for the entire pre-dispersal period of fledglings who died versus
survived their first year. Area curves marked with * have increases associated with the
loss of one parent and search for new mate..................................................................... 77
Figure 4.4: Daily movements during the first 120 days post-fledging for individuals that died vs.
survived............................................................................................................................ 78
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Mariana crow age class definitions.......................................................................... 27
Table 1.2: Mariana crow food category definitions................................................................... 27
Table 1.3: Mariana crow foraging strata definitions.................................................................. 27
Table 1.4: Mariana crow foraging substrate definitions............................................................ 27
Table 1.5: Food items taken by wild Mariana Crows................................................................ 28-29
Table 1.6: Frequencies of foraging substrates within food categories taken by wild Mariana
Crows.................................................................................................................................
29
Table 1.7: Food items taken by captive-reared Mariana Crows................................................ 30
Table 1.8: Frequencies of foraging substrates within food categories taken by captive-reared
Mariana Crows...................................................................................................................
30
Table 2.1: Home Range area of Mariana Crows....................................................................... 48
Table 2.2: Percent of home range overlap between Mariana Crow neighbors and siblings ..... 48
Table 3.1: Vegetation and Landscape PCA Components ....................................................... 64
Table 3.2: Animal PCA Components ...................................................................................... 64
Table 4.1: Causes of Death in Radio-tagged Juvenile Mariana Crows .................................... 79
Table 4.2: Pearson Product Moment Correlations in Fledgling Mariana Crows....................... 79
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my advisers, Renee Ha and Jim Ha, and committee members Mike
Beecher, and Aaron Wirsing, for their guidance and support throughout this study. I am also
especially grateful to my parents, Aron Faegre and Kathy Kelley, and my husband, Phil Hannon,
for their limitless encouragement and support. I also thank my son Tor and “Baby Brother” for
providing additional motivation, in their own way. I thank the numerous biologists and crows
that made this study possible: Aaron Wuori, Andria Kroner, Brette Soucie, Calypso Gagorik,
Colin Duncan, Cyrus Moqtaderi, Daica Wiitala, Dylan Hubl, Elizabeth Kain, Emily Cook, Evan
Rehm, Gabrielle Robinson, Heather Brown, Henry Fandel, Hillary Henry, Jen Carpenter, Jen
Wilcox, Jose Antonio Diaz, Kelle Urban, Kelsey McKune, Laura Bussolini, Lena Ware, Lindsey
Nietmann, Lydia Goy, Marissa Buschow, Matt Henschen, Mike Hitchcock, Phillip Hannon,
Rumaan Malhotra, Samantha Lantz, Scott Moore, Sean Jeffreys, Sarena Olson, Sinead Borchert
and Steve Seibel assisted with field work and captive care. Special thanks to Dylan Hubl and
Lindsey Nietmann for assistance with data analysis. The captive crows, Guy and Groucho, were
reared by Latte the crow, an extraordinary foster mother and an inspiration. Many thanks to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Lands and Natural Resources
and Division of Fish and Wildlife. I thank Manny Pangelinan and Richard B. Seman for their
support of my work in the Marianas and I thank Julia Boland, Fred Amidon, Shelly Kremer,
Megan Laut, Annie Marshal, Sheldon Plentovich, Paul Radley, and Lainie Berry for additional
logistical and permitting support. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellowship Program; it was also supported by the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands Department of Lands and Natural Resources-Division of Fish and
Wildlife from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Section 6 Endangered Species funds, grants F14AF00120,
F14AF01145, F15AF01118. Work was conducted in accordance to Federal Fish and Wildlife
Permit TE09155B-0 and TE09155B-1, Federal Bird Marking and Salvage Permit 22802 and
University of Washington Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol number 2858-
04.
1
Chapter 1: Age-related differences in diet and foraging behavior of the
critically endangered Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi)
Introduction
Age-related differences in diet and foraging behavior have been attributed to many factors,
including the different nutritional needs or optimal foraging strategies of each age class (Engen
& Stenseth 1989), different food resources in habitats occupied by adult versus immature
animals (Penteriani et al. 2011), and changes in foraging ability due to physical maturation and
learning (MacLean 1986, Enoksson 1988, Yoerg 1998). Immature animals are usually inefficient
foragers (Sullivan 1988, Yoerg 1994, Heise & Moore 2003, Natasha Vanderhoff & Eason 2008)
and rely on foods that are easiest to procure (Yoerg 1994). Most bird species exhibit age-
dependent survival in which younger individuals have higher mortality rates and increased
susceptibility to starvation and predation (Lack 1954, Sullivan 1988, Martin 1995).
Studies comparing the foraging behaviors of juvenile and adult birds widely report that
juveniles are less adept in one or more components of foraging (Marchetti & Price 1989,
Wunderle 1991). Both motor maturation and learning are important for the development of
foraging behaviors in birds (Tebbich et al. 2001, Slagsvold and Wiebe 2011, Brumm and
Teschke 2012), and some species do not become proficient in the full spectrum of species-typical
foraging behaviors for months or years after reaching nutritional independence (Heinsohn et al.
1988, Heinsohn 1991, Bluff et al. 2010, Holzhaider et al. 2010a,b).
Island ecosystems are highly susceptible to the effects of invasive species and habitat
transformation (Brook et al. 2008, Szabo et al. 2012), both of which can lead to changes in food
2
resources (Banko et al. 2013, George et al. 2013). Knowledge of the age-related diets and
foraging behaviors of island-endemic species may help wildlife managers predict species’
responses to changes in availability of food resources, and may highlight age- or season-specific
needs or vulnerabilities. Information on diet and foraging behavior may also be used to improve
assessments of habitat quality and to improve diets and enrichment opportunities for captive
animals.
The Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi) is a critically endangered island-endemic corvid
whose single remaining population is on the island of Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), and is declining. The decline has been attributed to habitat loss and
degradation, persecution by humans, predation and competition from introduced species, and
inbreeding depression (Morton et al. 1999, Plentovich et al. 2005, USFWS 2005, Wiewel et al.
2009, Sussman et al. 2015). Little evidence is available to support these ideas, although recent
evidence from radio-telemetry studies suggests that predation from feral cats (Felis catus) may
be an important cause of mortality for fledgling, sub-adult, and adult Mariana Crows (S. Faegre
and R. Ha, unpublished data).
The Mariana Crow is an opportunistic omnivore that forages within primary and
secondary limestone forest, using all forest strata, from the ground to the supercanopy (Tomback
1986). Previous studies have identified common food items as insects, including Ensifera
(grasshoppers and crickets), Mantodea (mantids), Dermaptera (earwigs), and Lepidoptera larva
(moths and butterflies); small vertebrates including Lacertilia (lizards), immature Rattus (rats),
Aves (birds) eggs, and nestlings; as well as Coenobita hermit crabs, and plant-based items such
as fruits, seeds, flowers, and bark (Beaty 1967, Jenkins 1983, Tomback 1986, Michael 1987).
3
However, quantitative information on diet is lacking and the effects of age and season on diet
and foraging behavior are unknown.
In this study, we describe the diets and foraging behaviors of wild crows during three life
stages (fledgling, sub-adult, and adult), as well as that of two captive-reared crows during their
first 11 months post-release. We hypothesized that age-related differences in diet and foraging
behavior of the Mariana Crow would occur due to physical maturation and learning during the
fledgling and sub-adult periods. During direct observations of wild Mariana Crows, we counted
the frequencies with which fledglings, sub-adults, and adults captured foods in different
categories. We predicted that adults would more frequently capture crabs, which are processed
using complex sequences of behaviors (S. Faegre, pers. obs.), while fledglings would more
frequently obtain fruits, seeds and plant-based items that can be taken and processed using fewer
or simpler movements (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). We expected sub-adults to have average levels of
food acquisition within all categories due to their intermediate age and presumed foraging
abilities. In addition to testing these hypotheses, we explored other statistical relationships
between food categories and age classes.
We also compared the frequencies with which the three age classes captured food items
from two foraging strata: ground (where items from all food categories can be found), and above
ground (where items from all except the “crabs” category can be found). We predicted that, if
adults hunt and capture crabs more frequently, this may drive an increase in ground-based food
captures for adults, in comparison to other age classes. To assess foraging habitat use at a fine
scale, we recorded the forest substrates from which food items were taken. We summarized the
frequencies with which foods from each category were taken from each substrate and described
foraging techniques that were common to each substrate.
4
Seasonal weather changes can drive changes in foraging behavior in tropical birds (Jahn
et al. 2010). Rota experiences a rainy season from July-November and a dry season from
January-May, which could result in season-specific needs or vulnerabilities among foraging
crows. We hypothesized that Mariana Crows would consume different prey items in the wet vs.
dry seasons.
Methods
Study area
Rota is the second most southerly island after Guam in the Mariana Islands, Western Micronesia
(1409’N, 14512’E). The 85-km2 island is volcanic in origin with uplifted limestone terraces. The
climate is tropical, with high humidity. Wet and dry seasons are typically from July-November
and January-May respectively. Rota is located within the Western Pacific typhoon belt and
experiences typhoons periodically; however, no typhoons reached Rota during this study.
Radio-tracking and Foraging Observations of Wild Crows
Between March 2010 and March 2013 food items, foraging strata, and foraging substrates were
categorized during daily observations of 21 wild, radio-tagged Mariana Crows and at least 15
untagged crows. All crows were aged as fledglings, sub-adults, or adults (defined in Table 1). All
untagged crows were members of the same family as the radio-tagged individual(s) with whom
they were observed, except for one case in which a neighboring sub-adult was present with a family
group.
Of the 21 radio-tagged crows in this study, 16 were tagged as fledglings, one as a sub-adult,
and four as adults. Mariana Crows are not cooperative breeders (Morton et al. 1999), and
5
nutritional independence from the parents almost always coincides with dispersal from the natal
territory (S. Faegre, unpublished data). Crows were classified as fledglings during the period of
nutritional dependence on their parents, prior to dispersal, and as sub-adults after reaching
independence from their parents but prior to their first nesting attempt. Crows were classified as
adults after a nesting attempt, or evidence of it (i.e. crows found caring for fledglings), was
observed. The precise number of adults in this study is unknown. However, based on the number
of family groups in which unbanded and/or banded adults were observed capturing food, our data
include a minimum of 17 adult crows.
Tagged crows were located daily using radio-telemetry and observed from a distance of
2-10 meters, using 8X42 or 10X42 binoculars as needed. The identity of food items and their
corresponding stratum and substrate were recorded in descriptive notes. When individuals under
observation moved away from the observer, they were not followed. If the observer remained
unseen or was able to monitor the bird from a distance, the observation period was extended.
Observation sessions ranged from 2-150 minutes with a median of 23 minutes.
Food items were placed into seven categories (defined in Table 2) based on the taxonomy
of food items and foraging techniques: 1) adult insects, 2) termite or ant colonies or insect larvae
(termites/ants/larvae), 3) Polistes wasp nests (wasp nests), 4) lizards, 5) crabs, 6) fruits, seeds
and plant materials (fruits/seeds/plants), and 7) Other. Within these categories, many food items
were identified further, into sub-categories. Since it was not possible to determine the quantity of
some food items, presence/absence of a given category was recorded.
Approximately 10% of observation sessions included a crow taking two or three food
items. If multiple food items within an observation were captured from different food categories
6
and/or by different birds and at different locations and times (>10 minutes apart), then food items
were treated as independent from one another. If food items were not independent, a single item
was selected randomly from those taken in a given 10-minute block. Thus, all tables, figures and
statistical analyses display results from independently observed food items.
Forest strata were categorized as ground or above ground (defined in Table 3); foraging
substrates (defined in Table 4) were categorized as: 1) dead wood, 2) bark, 3) foliage/branches,
4) rolled leaves, 5) ground debris, and 6) Pandanus. Pandanus was placed in a separate category
from other foliage because foraging crows often target Pandanus trees (Jenkins 1983) and use
unique foraging techniques to acquire food within them.
Captive-reared Crows
Between December 2013 and November 2014, food items and foraging behaviors were
identified during post-release observations of two radio-tagged, captive-reared adult male crows.
GU248 (FWS band ID 84477248) was taken in for rehabilitation at 7-months post-fledge and
released after one year in captivity. GR010 (FWS band ID 99403010) was taken into captivity on
the day he fledged and released after three years in captivity. GR010 was naive to wild foraging
prior to his release while GU248 had experience foraging in the wild as a fledgling. The captive
crows were released together in an area where wild crows had previously been radio-tracked.
Supplemental feedings were provided immediately post-release and tapered according to each
individual’s need. The mass and body condition of each bird was assessed during opportunistic
post-release recaptures. At the completion of data gathering for this study, the captive-reared
crows had been tracked for 11 months post-release. Due to the small sample size of captive-
reared birds (n=2), we do not make statistical comparisons between the captive-reared and wild
7
crows, but we include it here due to the value of this information for the conservation of the
species.
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Log-linear analysis was
not used because the study design is not fully factorial. One of the food categories (crabs) is
found only on the ground and this observed relationship between forest stratum and food
category violates an assumption of log-linear analysis. We used three Pearson’s chi-squared tests
to test our hypotheses about relationships between three sets of categorical variables: 1) age class
and food category, 2) age class and forest stratum, and 3) season and food category. The analysis
of the relationship between age class and forest stratum was conducted both with and without the
“crabs” category to determine if adult crows’ high rates of crab predation were driving
differences in strata-use between age classes.
To control for Type I Error, alpha was set at .05 and a family-wise alpha of .01 was used
for the three primary chi-squared tests. We also conducted all pairwise comparisons of food
category and age class using additional 2X2 chi-square tests. The Bonferroni correction was
applied to pairwise comparisons and alpha was set at .002. We report raw P-values for all
pairwise comparisons.
Results
Wild Crows
This study identified 619 food items taken by 36 wild crows (Table 5) and determined the
corresponding foraging strata and substrates for 469 and 363 items respectively. Fourteen
percent of food captures were plant-based foods and 86% were animal prey; 65% of animal prey
8
were insects or their larvae and eggs. Adult insects were the most frequently captured food
category within each age class and made up 31% of food items (Figure 1).
Ninety-nine percent of food items were attributed to crows of known age; of those, 33%
were attributed to fledglings, 41% to sub-adults, and 26% to adults. Fledglings and sub-adults
consumed the food items they procured while adults fed 84% of captured food items to their
offspring. Because of this, fledgling food-capture frequencies do not accurately reflect their food
intake. Fledglings began to manipulate and explore objects immediately after leaving the nest,
however functional foraging was rarely observed during the first month post-fledging. Fledglings
dispersed between four and 10 months post-fledging (M = 8 months, n = 13) and the recruitment
of one known-age sub-adult into the breeding population occurred at 16 months post-fledging,
which is the youngest documented recruitment of a Mariana Crow.
Due to the variation in age at dispersal, there was some overlap in the absolute age (in
days post-fledging) between the fledgling and sub-adult categories. The mean (± SD) age of
known-age fledglings and sub-adults during observed food captures was 170 ± 68 days (range =
10-293) for fledglings, and 302 ± 66 days (range = 122-462) for sub-adults. Most adults were
unbanded and their exact ages were unknown.
Wild crows captured animal prey from all forest substrates accessible to them. Ants,
termites, and insect larvae were captured primarily by excavating dead wood; Polistes wasp nests
were pulled from the undersides of leaves or from small branches, and crabs were located by
searching through ground debris. Lizards and adult insects were captured from a variety of
substrates (Table 6). Since sufficient descriptions of substrate were absent from 28% of observed
food captures, Table 6 represents the minimum numbers of items from each food category taken
from each substrate.
9
We found a strong association between age class and food type, χ²(12, N = 611) = 151.59,
p < .001, V=.352 (Figure 2). As predicted, adults captured significantly more crabs than
fledglings χ²(1, N = 359) = 34.93, p < .001 or sub-adults χ²(1, N = 411) = 29.75, p < .001, and
fledglings took more fruits/seeds/plants than adults χ²(1, N = 359) = 30.80, p < .001 or sub-adults
χ²(1, N = 452) = 35.02, p < .001. Based on timed observations of hermit crab predation events,
adults spent 3-7 minutes (M = 4.4, n = 6) opening hermit crabs while sub-adults spent 9-24
minutes (M = 17.6, n = 3). Hermit crab predation by fledglings was too rare (n = 1) to quantify in
a meaningful way.
Additional pairwise comparisons suggested that fledglings captured more
ants/termites/larvae than sub-adults χ²(1, N = 452) = 11.63, p = .001 or adults χ²(1, N = 359) =
32.90, p < .001, and that sub-adults captured more ants/termites/larvae than adults χ²(1, N = 411)
= 9.57, p = .002. Fledglings captured fewer adult insects than adults χ²(1, N = 359) = 12.09, p =
.001 or sub-adults χ²(1, N = 452) = 17.02, p < .001. Sub-adults trended towards capturing more
lizards than fledglings χ²(1, N = 452) = 7.17, p = .007, and more wasp nests than fledglings χ²(1,
N = 452) = 5.78, p = .016, however these results were not significant at the level of the
Bonferroni-adjusted alpha (P=.002).
There was a moderate association between age class and forest strata, χ²(2, N = 466) =
13.12, p = .001, V=.168 (Figure 3). Pairwise comparisons showed that adults obtained
significantly more food from the ground than sub-adults, χ²(1, N = 295) = 13.10, p < .001, and
tended to capture more food from the ground than fledglings χ²(1, N = 252) = 4.05, p =.044.
However, when captures of crabs were removed from the analysis, the relationship between age
class and foraging strata disappeared χ²(2, N = 435) = 5.28, p = .071, V=.110.
10
We found no support for the hypothesis of seasonal differences in food category
frequencies, χ²(6, N = 531) = 2.51, p = .87. We repeated this analysis for each age class
individually, and also after reclassifying food items into three categories: crabs, non-crab animal
items, and plant-based items. None of these analyses provided evidence for seasonal differences
in food category frequencies.
Captive-reared Crows
Between December 2013 and November 2014 we categorized 209 food items from the two
captive-reared crows after release (Table 7); 93 food items were attributed to GU248, and 116
items were attributed to GR010. GU248’s last supplemental feeding was on day 19 post-release
while GR010’s was on day 26. GR010’s mass went from 270 grams at release to 266 and 284
grams at 2 and 4.5 months post-release. GU248’s mass increased from 274 grams at release to
284 grams at 4 months post-release.
Anecdotally, (Figure 4) the captive-reared crows’ food captures were different from wild
birds in some respects and they often differed from each other as well. GR010’s high percentage
of adult insect captures were similar to those of wild sub-adults and adults while GU248’s low
percentage of adult insects more closely resembled the food captures of the fledgling age class.
The captive-reared crows’ high percentage of foods from the ants/termites/larvae category was
more similar to wild fledglings than other age classes. However, the most notable differences
between the captive-reared and wild crows appeared within their consumption of lizards, fruits,
and wasp nests. Both captive-reared crows took fewer lizards and fruits and more wasp nests
than any age class of wild crow.
The foraging stratum was recorded for 202 of 209 food items; relative frequencies of
strata use were within the range of values for age classes of wild crows (Figure 5). GR010
11
captured food items from the ground 33% of the time and GU248 did so 27% of the time. Wild
adults foraged from the ground 41% of the time.
The corresponding foraging substrate was recorded for 176 of 209 food items (Table 8).
The captive-reared crows foraged from the same substrates as wild birds. However, wild crows
captured at least 49% of their geckos from Pandanus trees while the captive-reared crows only
captured 12.5% of their geckos from Pandanus, taking them instead from rolled leaves, branches
and foliage, bark, and dead wood.
Discussion
Like most Corvus species, Mariana Crows feed on a wide variety of animal and plant-based
foods. We confirmed previous reports that insects, insect larvae, lizards, fruits, and Coenobita
hermit crabs are common food types and we identified several plant and animal species and one
fungus that was not reported previously in the diet of the Mariana Crow. New animal prey items
included Polistes wasp larvae, Scolopendra centipedes, non-Coenobita land crabs, and a single
observation of a cane toad (Bufo marinus) predation in which only the tongue was consumed.
The most notable among new plant-based items were fruits of the non-native shrub, Triphasia
trifolia.
We also observed crows eating foods left by humans for livestock or as bait for wild
animals. Crows were seen eating flesh from coconuts that had been opened and tied to the
ground by hunters as bait for Coconut Crabs (Birgus latro, Table 5). We were told by four
different landowners that crows regularly came to their yard to eat coconuts that were left out for
livestock. Additionally, two trail cameras took photographs of crows investigating canned fish
that was left as bait outside of cat traps (S. Faegre, pers. obs., D. Hartman, pers. comm. 2013).
12
Mariana Crows foraged in a wide variety of forest substrates, frequently targeting dead or
decaying plant material. Adult insects, particularly those in Orthoptera suborder Ensifera were
often captured from rolled, dead leaves in the understory; ant (Hymentopera) and termite
(Isoptera) colonies and insect larvae were excavated from dead wood, using woodpecker-like
blows. Lizards (primarily geckos) were commonly captured from a variety of trees, particularly
Pandanus, and from the ground. Many Pandanus trees have high densities of Oceanic Geckos
(Gehyra oceanica), which are commonly taken by crows (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). Crows foraging
in Pandanus trees searched through debris that had collected at the bases of the leaves and
tugged and tore at smaller leaves, or punctured the bases of leaves, to access hidden prey.
Eighty-seven percent of plant-based foods were fruits taken from trees or shrubs. Fruits
were taken from 15 tree species, 13 of which are native to Rota. The three most commonly
consumed fruits were from Triphasia trifolia, Artocarpus sp. and Carica papaya. Of these three,
only Artocarpus is native to the Mariana Islands while C. papaya and T. trifolia are naturalized.
The fruits of T. trifolia were consumed more frequently than any other fruit and made up 43% of
fruit foraging observations. Triphasia trifolia is a common understory shrub within primary and
secondary limestone forest. The prevalence of this shrub in crow habitat, along with its prolific,
year-round fruiting, might account for the frequency with which it is eaten by crows. Four wild
Mariana Crows, taken into captivity for rehabilitation, showed a preference for the fruits of C.
papaya and Premna obtusifolia over T. trifolia when given a choice (S. Faegre, pers. obs.).
Animal food sources accounted for 86% of food items captured by Mariana Crows. Fruit
was eaten infrequently, especially by sub-adults and adults (Figure 2). Native and introduced
fruits were considered a primary component of the diet of wild Hawaiian Crows (Corvus
hawaiiensis), though they also frequently consumed small invertebrates, bird eggs, and nestlings
13
(BirdLife International 2013). Hawaiian Crows, currently extinct in the wild, are considered
more frugivorous than continental Corvus species (BirdLife International 2013) and it is likely
that they are also more frugivorous than Mariana Crows. This difference in diet could be
important to consider if diets of captive Mariana Crows, and particularly rearing diets for
nestlings, are modeled after diets used successfully for captive Hawaiian Crows.
We found no evidence of an effect of season on Mariana Crow food-capture frequencies
for any age class, within two different scales of food categorization. While the fruiting of some
tree species on Rota is known to increase during the wet season, other trees fruit at high levels in
both seasons (Amidon 2000). However, since Mariana Crows eat very little fruit or plant-based
items, any differences in tree phenology were unlikely to be reflected by our results. The lack of
seasonal effect in this study may reflect a year-round abundance of the crow’s primary animal
prey. Avian food resources, such as insects, are often more reliable in tropical environments
(Karr 1976), as compared to temperate environments.
We found age-related differences in the diets of wild Mariana crows. The frequency of
fruits/seeds/plants taken decreased as birds aged, from 29% in fledglings to 8% and 6% in sub-
adults and adults. The frequency of predation on ants/termites/larvae also decreased, from 35%
to 20% to 9% in fledglings, sub-adults, and adults respectively. Crab predation, on the other
hand, increased as birds aged, from 2% and 4% in fledglings and sub-adults, to 20% in adults.
The fruits/seeds/plants and ants/termites/larvae categories contain foods that are easier to
procure, requiring the repetition of a few, simple movements. Crab capture and processing, on
the other hand, requires a complex sequence of movements, culminating in a rapid shaking
behavior that is not employed in other types of foraging (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). Overall, prey
capture that required the correct sequencing of discrete behaviors, and/or the use of fine motor
14
skills, occurred more frequently in older birds, suggesting that the differences may result from
physical maturation and steps in learning.
In this study, Mariana Crow hermit crab processing was comprised of three suites of
behaviors: 1) placement of the shell, 2) breaking the shell, and 3) removal of the crab abdomen.
The sequence and strategies varied between age classes and individuals, with greater consistency
among wild adults. In wild adults, step one was completed quickly, after which crows pecked
forcefully at shells, usually directing their blows at suture lines or other weaknesses on the
surface. Breaking the shell usually created an access point from which a crow could reach the
abdomen, causing the crab to emerge from its shell. When a crab emerged, it was pinched at the
joint between the carapace and the abdomen and shaken rapidly from side to side until the
abdomen separated (S. Faegre, pers. obs.).
Fledgling Mariana Crows, both wild and captive, watched their parents/mentors closely
during crab processing and frequently appeared to imitate their movements. However, they often
used processing behaviors in the incorrect order or directed at the wrong part of the crab (S.
Faegre, pers. obs.). The crab processing skills of three captive-reared Mariana Crow fledglings
developed gradually over a period of 1-2 years. Similarly, New Caledonian Crows (Corvus
moneduloides) rely on a combination of social learning and trial and error for the development of
larva fishing behavior and do not become proficient at larva-fishing with stick tools until they
reach at least one year post-fledging (Bluff et al. 2010; Holzhaider et al. 2010a,b). Other corvid
species, including the Common Raven (Corvus corax), have also demonstrated the ability to use
social learning to acquire a novel foraging behavior in a captive setting (Fritz and Kotrschal
1999). It is likely that both trial-and-error and social learning are needed for the acquisition of
crab handling behaviors in Mariana Crows.
15
Island endemic animals often have reduced vigilance behaviors compared to mainland
species due to relaxed selection for anti-predator traits in predator-depauperate environments
(Blumstein 2002, Blumstein et al. 2004). The island endemic New Caledonian Crow rarely scans
the sky for predators while foraging on or near the ground (Rutz & St. Clair 2012). Similarly,
Mariana Crows sometimes failed to detect an approaching human observer while processing
food items low or on the ground (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). The Mariana Crow evolved without any
natural predators and may have been subject to relaxed selection for anti-predator behaviors
during this time. While Mariana Crows respond appropriately when they see a predator (e.g.
feral cat), their apparent lack of vigilance behaviors may make them particularly vulnerable to
feral cat predation during the time it takes them to subdue and process hermit crabs on the
ground.
The Mariana Crow’s frequent predation of Coenobita hermit crabs is unique among
Corvus species and among most land birds. In particular, the Mariana Crow’s method of opening
hermit crab shells by pounding on them repeatedly, rather than dropping them on a hard surface,
is rare. Only two species of flightless rail, the Aldabera White-throated Rail (Dryolimnas cuvieri
aldabranus) and the extinct Wake Island Rail (Gallirallus wakensis) are known to open hermit
crab shells by pecking them open on the ground (Wanless & Hokey 2008, Olson & Rauzon
2011). Many Corvus species habitually crack hard-shelled food items, such as nuts, by dropping
them on hard surfaces (Cristol & Switzer 1999, Hunt et al. 2002); however this behavior has
only been observed once in the Mariana Crow (T. San Nicholas, pers. comm., 2014).
There are five species of Coenobita hermit crab on Rota. Four of these, C. brevimanus, C.
spinosus, C. cavipes and C. perlatus, are commonly found in crow habitat while the fifth, C.
rugosus, is found mainly on shores. Coenobita brevimanus is the most common species within
16
the limestone forests of Rota and is also the most commonly depredated by crows (S. Faegre,
pers. obs.). Coenobita species in forested areas of Rota use primarily Giant African Land Snail
(Achatina fulica) and Turbo sp. shells. Shells from the introduced A. fulica are relatively weak
and are almost exclusively the shell-type observed among crabs that are depredated by crows.
The harder Turbo sp. sea snail shells are native to Rota. Although there have been two
observations of crows removing Coenobita hermit crabs from Turbo shells, neither observation
involved the crow breaking the shell (H. Fandel, pers. comm. 2014).
The introduction, subsequent invasion and then control of A. fulica on Rota may have
indirectly impacted Mariana Crows due to the effects of shell type and availability on Coenobita
hermit crabs. Achatina fulica was introduced to the Mariana Islands as a food source between
1936 and 1938 where it became a major agricultural pest. Attempts to control it began in 1950
(National Research Council U.S. 1954), but it was not until the establishment of the flatworm
(Platydemus manokwari) in the late 1970s that the population was dramatically reduced (Nafus
& Schreiner 1989). The combination of high densities of A. fulica followed by effective control
may have led to an increase in shell availability, and subsequently an increase in weak-shelled
hermit crabs for crows. An increased availability of Coenobita hermit crabs, which are rich in
nutrients and high in fat (Lawrence 1976), may have been beneficial to the crow population.
However, given recent data suggesting that feral cat predation is a cause of mortality for
Mariana Crows (S. Faegre and R. Ha unpublished data), a historical increase in crab predation
could also have carried risks. In this study, adults captured more food items from the ground than
other age classes, entirely due to their increased frequency of hermit crab predation. Whether this
higher frequency of ground-based food captures in adult crows means that adults also spend
more time foraging on the ground than other age classes, however, is unclear. On average, sub-
17
adults took four times longer than adults to break open hermit crab shells; they were also
observed making unsuccessful attempts at crab predation while adults never failed to open a
crab. Young fledglings followed their parents closely during foraging, especially when food was
being processed (S. Faegre, pers. obs.), and the time they spend on the ground may mirror that of
their parents. An increase in crab availability after the control of A. fulica may have led to an
increase in ground-based foraging behaviors for crows of all ages. A study comparing ground-
based foraging time budgets for each age class would help clarify age-based vulnerabilities.
The two captive-reared crows in this study became independent of supplemental foods
less than one month post-release, and at four months post-release both crows were recaptured in
good body condition, each with a mass about 10 grams heavier than their pre-release mass. Our
comparisons of diet and foraging behavior of wild and captive-reared crows were encouraging
overall, in that the captive-reared crows foraged successfully on all prey types common in the
diets of wild crows. The captive-reared crows also foraged differently from wild crows in some
ways. Their high frequencies of wasp nest predation and low frequencies of fruit and lizard
predation, for example, have several possible explanations. In captivity, crows were given
geckos, hermit crabs, mice, and fruits on a daily basis. Wasp nests and/or insects were given less
frequently, approximately once per 1-2 weeks, and were always preferred over more common
food items (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). After their release, the captive crows may have sought out
their preferred foods (wasp nests and insects) and had lower levels of motivation to forage for
geckos or fruits.
Alternatively, they may have lacked the skills to locate fruits and capture geckos in the
wild, due to a paucity of realistic gecko- and fruit-foraging opportunities in their captive
environment. While realistic wasp nest foraging opportunities were not presented in captivity,
18
the reinforcement of the wasp nest search image appears to have been sufficient preparation for
the naive, captive-reared GR010 to successfully capture a wasp nest during his first encounter
with this item in the wild (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). Wasp nest predation, while potentially
dangerous, does not require specialized skills. GR010’s infrequent lizard captures, both
compared to wild crows and to GU248, the partially wild-reared member of his cohort, suggest
that a search image alone may have been inadequate for GR010’s development of lizard capture
skills. Live geckos were presented to the captive crows, but infrequently and not in a natural
foraging environment. Since wild crows capture most of their geckos from Pandanus trees, we
recommend providing increased opportunities for captive crows to hunt live geckos in Pandanus
trees.
While this study’s foraging data suggest that the captive-reared crows’ ground-based
food capture rates were within the normal range for wild crows, more general behavioral
observations indicated that the duration of ground-based activities overall were higher in the
released crows than wild crows (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). GR010, in particular, spent excessive
periods of time on the ground during the first 2-3 months post-release, and was not observed
flying above the canopy during the first seven months post-release. Upon release, an unpaired
adult female frequently followed either GR010 or GU248 in ground-based activities including,
most notably, lengthy periods of travel by hopping and walking along the ground, rather than
flying from tree to tree. The excessive duration of ground-based activities in the released crows
declined over time and, at nine months post-release, no differences in strata use between the
released and wild crows were observed (A. Kroner, pers. comm. 2014). Due to the presumed
increased risk of cat predation for crows on the ground, increasing the canopy-based enrichment
opportunities within aviaries could be beneficial. Additionally, due to the well-documented
19
potential for social transmission of behaviors in corvids and other birds (Fritz & Kotrschal 1999,
Slagsvold and Wiebe 2011, Auersperg et al. 2014), the potential for atypical behaviors of
released Mariana Crows to affect the behavior of wild crows should be considered.
With a sample size of two released birds, we cannot rule out the possibility that observed
differences between wild and captive-reared crows were caused by individual preferences or
other factors unrelated to their rearing environment. Additional data from future releases of
captive-reared crows will provide further insight into the effects of captive-rearing on behavior.
While the results presented here begin to answer questions about Mariana Crow diet and
foraging behavior, there are limitations. The Mariana Crow occurs at extremely low densities
and it was impractical to follow a sampling regimen that allowed equal sampling of strata,
individuals, or habitats. Known individuals could not be represented equally in the data due to
different lengths of tracking (due to mortality), variations in visibility due to forest density, and
variations in the tolerance of individuals to human presence. Therefore, the results may be biased
towards birds that were bolder, longer lived, and which occupied forests with greater visibility.
Additionally, due to the opportunistic nature of the observations, it is likely that our data were
biased towards larger food items with longer handling times, especially during observations of
adults with offspring, which often kept a greater distance between themselves and human
observers while foraging. Wild, radio-tagged adults, in particular, yielded very few foraging
observations due to their frequent intolerance of human observers (S. Faegre, pers. obs.). At the
other extreme, the captive-reared crows and wild sub-adult crows had little apparent reaction to
the proximity of humans.
20
The possibility of individual specialization in foraging strategy could not be investigated
in this study due to the low number of observations per known individual. A future study that
incorporates individual identity into the analysis would provide an interesting additional
dimension to this study.
Conclusions
Our primary recommendations, based on behavioral observations of the two released crows are
that, a) increased opportunities for captive crows to hunt live geckos and consume a variety of
whole, native fruits, presented as naturally as possible, could increase their post-release
proficiency with these food types, and b) a large, flight aviary would provide opportunities for
captive crows to travel longer distances at canopy height and may decrease excessive ground-
based activities after release.
Mariana Crows show evidence of age-related differences in diet and foraging behavior
that are likely driven by motor maturation and learning during the fledgling and sub-adult life
stages. Predation of hermit crabs may put crows at higher risk for feral cat predation, due to
increased time spent foraging on the ground. Very little is known about the foraging behaviors of
other tropical Asian/Australasian crows that are likely candidates for hermit crab predation
behaviors; observations of these species could lead to a better understanding of crab-foraging
behaviors in the absence of A. fulica shells.
In this study, we have shown that Mariana Crows of all ages captured nearly one third of
their food items from the ground and that adults captured significantly more food items from the
ground than other age classes due to their frequent capture hermit crabs. We have also noted that
Mariana Crows evolved on a predator-free, oceanic island and that while foraging low or on the
21
ground they can fail to detect an approaching observer, indicating that they may have reduced
vigilance behaviors, compared to mainland Corvus species. The fact that Mariana Crows forage
on the ground for much of their sustenance underscores the importance of continuing a program
of feral cat control.
22
Figures
Figure 1.1: Frequency distribution of food categories for all ages combined
23
Figure 1.2: Percentage of food categories captured by wild fledglings, sub-adults, and adults
24
Figure 1.3: Percentage of food items captured from ground vs. above ground by wild fledglings,
sub-adults, and adults
25
Figure 1.4: Percentage of food categories captured by wild and captive-reared crows
26
Figure 1.5: Percentage of food items captured from ground vs. above ground by wild and
captive-reared crows
27
Tables
Table 1.1. Mariana Crow age class definitions
Fledgling From fledge date until nutritional independence from parents (mean= 8 months; Morton et al.
1999)
Sub-adult From nutritional independence from parents until the first date observed nesting
Adult From the first date observed nesting until death
Table 1.2. Mariana Crow food category definitions
Adult insects All adult insects except those belonging to Isoptera: Termitoidae or
Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Termite or ant colonies or
insect larvae
(termites/ants/larvae)
Adults insects belonging to Isoptera: Termitoidae and Hypenoptera:
Formicidae and larvae or eggs of any insect
Polistes wasp nests (wasp
nests)
Polistes wasp larva
Lizards Animals of the suborder Lacertilia
Crabs Animals of the order Brachyura
fruits, seeds and plant
materials (fruits/seeds/plants)
Fruits, seeds, foliage, bark, and any other plant material
Other Bird eggs or nestlings, lizard eggs, fungi, amphibians, and arthropods not
belonging to Brachyura or Insecta
Table 1.3. Mariana Crow foraging strata definitions
Ground On the forest floor or less than one foot from the forest floor (e.g. fallen logs)
Above ground More than one foot above the forest floor
Table 1.4. Mariana Crow foraging substrate descriptions
Dead Wood Rotten wood, either fallen or in a snag or live tree; crows excavate animal prey by tearing
and/or pecking.
Bark Dead or live bark, peeled or flaked from trees to find hidden prey, or to eat live bark.
Foliage/branches Food items gleaned directly from branches/twigs or foliage of any plant except Pandanus
species.
Rolled leaves Dead or live, rolled/crumpled leaves; can be growing from a tree but are usually fallen
leaves, caught in the branches/foliage of trees and shrubs. Prey is initially partly or fully
hidden inside a rolled leaf.
Ground debris Food item picked up from the ground or uncovered by moving debris (leaves, twigs, chunks
of rotten wood) with the bill, or pulling prey from a crevice between rocks or roots.
Pandanus sp. Food item taken from live or dead Pandanus species, including debris accumulated in their
crowns.
Substrate not
observed
Observer did not see what substrate the food item was taken from.
Substrate not
recorded
Insufficient data were recorded to categorize substrate.
28
Table 1.5: Food items taken by wild Mariana Crows
Adult Insects (except Termitoidae or Formicidae) # Sub-totals
Ensifera sp. (Crickets and Katydids) 103
Mantodea sp. (Mantids) 3
Phasmatodea sp. (Walkingsticks) 1
Lepidoptera sp. (Moths and Butterflies) 1
Unknown adult insect 82
190
Termitoidae or Formicidae Colonies and Unknown Insect Larvae or Eggs
Termitoidae or Formicidae colony (unspecified) 56
Formicidae (ant) colony 23
Termitoidae (termite) colony 4
Lepidoptera (moth/butterfly) larvae 3
Unknown insect egg case 3
Unknown insect larvae 45
134
Polistes (wasp) Nests
25
Lacertilia (lizards)
Lacertilia sp. 5
Gekkonidae sp. (Geckos) 103
Scincidae sp. (Skinks) 9
117
Brachyura (Crabs)
Coenobita sp. (Hermit crabs) 43
Birgus latro (Coconut crabs) 1
Other land crabs 3
47
Fruits, seeds and other plant-based items
Artocarpus sp. Fruit 11
Carica papaya fruit 8
Cocos nucifera fruit 4
Cordia subcordata fruit 2
Eleocarpus joga fruit 1
Eugenia sp. Fruit 2
Ficus sp. Fruit 1
Guamia mariannae flowers 1
Hernandia sp. fruit 1
Intsia bijuga bark 2
Melanolepis multiglandulosa fruit 1
Mammea odorata leaf stems 1
Mucuna sp. seed 2
Ochrosia mariannensis fruit 1
Pipturus argenteus fruit 4
Premna obtusifolia fruit 2
Psychotria mariana fruit 2
Scaevola sercea fruit 1
Triphasia trifolia fruit 32
Unknown fruit 5
Unknown seed 1
85
Other
29
Aplonis opaca (Micronesian Starling) nestling 3
Gallicolumba xanthonura (White-throated Ground Dove) nestling 4
Gygis alba (White Tern) egg 1
Rhipidura rufifrons (Rufous Fantail) nestling 1
Unknown nestling 3
Bufo bufo (Cane toad) 1
Araneae sp. (Spider) 3
Scolopendra sp. (Centipede) 2
Lacertilia sp. (lizard) eggs 2
Aricularia sp. mushroom 1
21
Grand Total 619
Table 1.6. Frequencies of foraging substrates within food categories taken by wild Mariana
Crows
Adult
insects
Termites/ants/
larvae
Wasp
nests
Lizards Crabs Fruits/seeds/
plants
Other Total
Dead Wood 2 87 0 0 0 0 0 89
Bark 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 10
Foliage/branches 12 5 6 3 0 62 2 90
Rolled leaves 33 3 0 2 0 0 0 38
Ground debris 16 4 0 10 34 11 1 76
Pandanus sp. 12 3 3 41 0 0 1 60
Substrate not
observed
35 4 11 34 13 3 13 113
Substrate not
recorded
78 22 5 27 0 7 4 143
Total 190 134 25 117 47 85 21 619
30
Table 1.7: Food items taken by captive-reared Mariana Crows
Adult Insects (except Termitoidae or Formicidae) # Sub-totals
Ensifera sp. (Crickets and Katydids) 43
Scoliidae sp. (Scoliid wasps) 3
Lepidoptera sp. (Moths and Butterflies) 1
Unknown adult insect 18
65
Termitoidae or Formicidae Colonies and Unknown Insect Larvae or Eggs
Formicidae sp. (ant) colony 44
Termitoidae sp. (termite) colony 12
Unknown insect egg case 7
Unknown insect larvae 5
68
Polistes (wasp) Nests
29
Lacertilia (lizards)
Gekkonidae sp. (Geckos) 16
16
Brachyura (Crabs)
Coenobita sp. (Hermit crabs) 18
Birgus latro (Coconut crabs) 1
19
Fruits, seeds and other plant-based items
Pipturus argenteus fruit 1
Triphasia trifolia fruit 2
3
Other
Gallus gallus (Red Junglefowl) eggs 3
Todiramphus chloris (Collared Kingfisher) adult 1
Araneae sp. (Spider) 3
Lacertilia sp. (lizard) eggs 2
9
Grand Total 209
Table 1.8. Frequencies of foraging substrates within food categories taken by captive-reared
Mariana Crows Adult
insects
Termites/ants/
larvae
Wasp
nests
Lizards Crabs Fruits/seeds/
plants
Other Total
Dead Wood 0 45 0 1 0 0 1 47
Bark 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 6
Foliage/branches 2 5 27 3 0 2 2 41
Rolled leaves 35 2 0 5 0 1 43
Ground debris 9 2 0 0 18 1 3 33
Pandanus sp. 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 6
Substrate not
observed
1 0 1 3 1 0 1 7
Substrate not
recorded
15 10 0 1 0 0 0 26
Total 65 68 29 16 19 3 9 209
31
Chapter 2: Spatial Ecology of the Mariana Crow: A Radio-tracking Study
Introduction
Animal movement patterns result from a dynamic interplay between individuals and their
environment as they perform the behaviors needed to survive and reproduce (Burt 1943). The
restriction of activities to a home range can facilitate the exploitation of resources, such as food
and nesting areas, while nomadic movement patterns may be advantageous when resources are
widespread or highly unpredictable (Börger et al. 2008). Intraspecific variation in home range
and movements often relate to habitat variables, as well as the density of competing conspecifics,
and the age, sex, and social status of the individual (Sanderson 1966, Maher & Lott 2000,
McLoughlin & Ferguson 2000, Jetz et al. 2004, Kjellander et al. 2004, Mitchell & Powell 2004,
López-Bao et al. 2014). Temporal scale of study is also critical to consider since this can affect
the apparent size and structure of home ranges, particularly if home ranges are dynamic
(Gautestad & Mysterud 1995, Rolando 2002, Schwarzkopf and Alford 2002, Börger et al. 2008,
Martinez-Miranzo et al. 2016). Identifying factors that influence space use decisions by animals
is important for wildlife management (Chalfoun & Martin 2007, Xu et al. 2009, Gerber et al.
2012) and yet these data are lacking for many endangered species (Rechetelo et al. 2016).
The Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi) is a critically endangered forest bird that faces a
high risk of extinction (Ha et al. 2010). The crow is endemic to the islands of Rota and Guam but
was extirpated from Guam in the 1990s due to predation by the introduced Brown Tree Snake
(Boiga irregularus; Savidge 1987). The single remaining population of Mariana Crows is
confined to the island of Rota and consists of fewer than 200 individuals (Zarones et al. 2012;
32
Kroner & Ha 2017). Theories for the decline of crows on Rota include habitat loss and
degradation, persecution by humans, predation and competition from introduced species, and
inbreeding depression (Morton et al. 1999, Plentovich et al. 2005, USFWS 2005, Wiewel et al.
2009, Sussman et al. 2015). Little evidence is available to support the theories, although recent
evidence from radio-telemetry studies suggests that predation from feral cats (Felis catus) is an
important cause of mortality (S. Faegre and R. Ha, unpublished data).
During the 1990s, habitat removal and degradation from human causes and typhoons
were linked to the loss of territorial pairs and reduced nest success (Morton et al. 1999, Zarones
et al. 2015). Habitat loss and degradation continue to impact crows to some degree (e.g.
disturbance due to the illegal removal of trees, S. Faegre, pers. obs.), but it is unlikely that this is
a limiting factor for population recovery. Knowledge of Mariana Crow spatial behavior is
important for the management of remaining Mariana Crow habitat.
While habitat occupancy of Mariana Crows on Rota has been broadly delineated
(Zarones et al. 2015, Faegre et al. 2016, Kroner & Ha 2017), little is known about the home
range and movement patterns of the species, and intraspecific differences in home range have
never been studied. Previous research, based on opportunistic observations of color banded
individuals, suggested that the average home range of Mariana Crow family groups during the
fledgling period was 64 ha. and that the density of breeding pairs was approximately one pair per
22 ha. of forested area (Morton et al. 1999). In this study, we followed radio-tagged crows to
more accurately estimate home range characteristics of the species and to begin to understand
how other factors, such as age class and physical development, may relate to differences in
movements and home range. Intraspecific differences in mobility have implications for energy
33
expenditure and may indicate different needs or susceptibilities among these groups that could be
addressed by managers.
In addition to estimating home ranges during the fledgling and sub-adult life stages, we
studied weekly and monthly ranges and daily movements, and generated home range data-area
curves, in order to better understand the behavioral processes governing home range behavior
(Maher & Lott 2000, McLoughlin & Ferguson 2000). Home range area curves estimate home
range area on the Y-axis over increasing numbers of relocation points on the X-axis. Area curves
are useful for determining the number of relocation points needed to fully reveal home ranges
and can also be indicative of home range stability (Haines et al. 2009).
The stability of sub-adult populations directly impacts breeding populations (Penteriani et
al. 2011), and is particularly important to consider for species with a prolonged juvenile period
(Webb et al. 2009) or with high adult mortality rates, such as the Mariana Crow (Ha et al. 2010).
Mariana Crows are not cooperative breeders and, during nesting, pairs defend temporary
territories around active nests, excluding conspecifics, including offspring from prior years. After
natal dispersal, and prior to being recruited into the breeding population, sub-adult Mariana
Crows are rarely seen and their behavior has never been described. In this study, we radio-
tracked sub-adults during their first 2-12 months post-fledging and described their social and
spatial behaviors.
In this work, we present descriptive statistics on home range size, overlap, and stability,
as well as on daily movements during the fledgling and sub-adult life stages. Current habitat
management practices for the Mariana Crow population assume that addressing threats near
active nests will provide protection in habitat that is most critical to the crow population.
34
However, a better understanding of Mariana Crow home ranges and movement patterns during
the non-nesting period will help determine if the current management strategy is sufficient.
Methods
Study area
Rota is the second most southerly island after Guam in the Mariana Islands, Western Micronesia
(1409’N, 14512’E). The 85-km2 island is volcanic in origin with uplifted limestone terraces.
The climate is tropical, with high humidity. Wet and dry seasons are typically from July-
November (wet) and January-May (dry) with rainfall measuring from a minimum of 3.69
inches/month in March to a maximum of 13.37 inches/month in September (Lander & Guard
2003). Rota is located within the Western Pacific typhoon belt and experiences typhoons
periodically.
Radio-tracking
Between March 2010 and January 2017, Mariana Crows were radio-tagged and tracked using
Holohil RI-2CT VHF transmitters. Transmitter/harness packages were 3-4% of the body weight
of each crow and were fitted to individuals using a backpack design with a weak link system
incorporated. All crows in this study were classified as either fledglings or sub-adults. Due to
their movements as family units, fledgling movements approximated the movements of their
parents during this same time period.
Nutritional independence of young from the parents, at an average age of eight months
post-fledging (Morton et al. 1999, S. Faegre, unpublished data), generally coincides with
dispersal from the natal territory. Crows were classified as fledglings during the period of
35
nutritional dependence on their parents, and as sub-adults after reaching independence from their
parents but prior to their first nesting attempt. During daily or bi-weekly observations, tagged
crows were observed and social interactions were recorded to determine breeding and social
status.
This study included 20 Mariana Crows; 17 were tagged as fledglings, shortly before or
after fledgling, and three were tagged as sub-adults of unknown age. When siblings were radio-
tagged, only one sibling from the pair was used in each analysis to avoid pseudoreplication.
Crows were tracked until death or until failure of the radio-tag. Five crows died prior to natal
dispersal (four due to probable feral cat predation) and four had transmitter batteries fail prior to
dispersal. The remaining eight crows were tracked through natal dispersal, and tracked as sub-
adults for periods of two months to one year.
Home Range Analysis
We used the fixed K local convex hull method (Getz & Wilmers 2004) to characterize home
ranges from full data sets (consisting of a minimum of 120 data points), and the minimum
convex polygon method (Samuel & Fuller 1994) for analyses of data sets at smaller temporal
scales. While there are biological and statistical disadvantages to the minimum convex polygon
method when samples are large (Samuel & Fuller 1994), this method is commonly reported and
tends to be more robust with smaller numbers of relocation points. We chose the local convex
hull (LoCoH) method over kernel density estimators because the LoCoH method represents
space use more accurately within landscapes characterized by sharp topographical features and
fragmented habitats (Getz & Wilmers 2004, Getz et al. 2007). Furthermore, unlike kernel-based
methods, the fixed K LoCoH is robust to changes in the smoothing parameter (Getz et al. 2007),
36
reducing the potential for biased results and improving the accuracy of inter-individual
comparisons. All home ranges were measured at the 100% isopleth.
When possible, we present descriptive statistics for home range size of complete datasets
for biologically meaningful life stages (e.g. fledgling period, sub-adult period). However, due to
incomplete datasets for the sub-adult period, we used three shortened temporal scales (30, 60,
and 90 days post-fledging or post-dispersal) when testing for differences between fledgling and
sub-adult home ranges.
We evaluated daily mobility among fledglings and sub-adults using daily movement
distances (i.e. the distance between daily observations). Home range area curves were used to
determine if individual home range boundaries were stable and to determine the number of
locations needed to accurately estimate home range size.
Statistical Analyses
All analyses comparing fledgling and sub-adult spatial behavior were done using linear mixed
effects models in R (package nlme; Piniero & Bates 2017). To satisfy model assumptions, home
range area was square-root transformed whenever it was used as a dependent variable and daily
movement distance was cube-root transformed. Home range area and overlap were calculated
using Reproducible Home Range package in R (Signer & Balkenhol 2015) and ArcView 10.1.
We used two methods to determine the average length of time it took fledglings to reach
full mobility. First, we calculated the mean number of days it took fledglings to reach their own
mean post-fledging daily movement distance. Second, we visually evaluated the daily movement
distances of fledglings over time using the graph from the model for daily movements by weeks
post-fledging.
37
To further explore the stability of fledgling and sub-adult home ranges over the study
period we created home range area curves for each individual, beginning either at fledge day or
dispersal day, using program BIOTAS 1.0.1a (Ecological Software Solutions 2002), and Excel.
We examined area curves visually to see if cumulative areas appeared to approach asymptotes
over time.
Results
When analyzing full datasets, home range estimates were 86% higher when using the MCP
method, as compared to the LoCoH method. Despite the shorter radio-tracking periods for sub-
adults, sub-adult home ranges were 316% larger than fledglings with the MCP method and 167%
larger with the LoCoH method (Table 1). Home range overlap between neighbors (directly
adjacent and non-adjacent), and sibling pairs (fledgling and sub-adult) are presented in Table 2.
Over 90-day periods, cumulative home range area was larger for sub-adults than for
fledglings (F (1, 22) = 9.3668, p = 0.0057, Figure 1). Home ranges also increased in area over
time, (F (1, 46) = 59.3646, p < 0.0001, Figure 1), suggesting that either home ranges were
shifting over smaller time periods, or that movements were increasing over time such that birds
were using larger areas.
With all fledgling data included, daily movement distances were longer for sub-adults
than for fledglings (F (1, 18) = 73.903, p < 0.0001) and increased with week (F (1, 477) =
127.686, p < 0.0001, Figure 2). There was also a significant interaction between age and week (F
(1, 477) = 4.505, p < 0.0343). However, these effects were driven primarily by low mobility
during the early post-fledging period. After removing the first ten weeks post-fledge there was a
38
marginally significant effect of age (F (1, 18) = 4.100, p = 0.0580, Figure 3), but neither the
interaction (F (1, 359) = 0.453, p = 0.5013) nor the effect of week (F (1, 359) = 1.440, p =
0.2309) was significant.
Non-cumulative home range size increased with age (F (1, 22) = 22.8136, p < 0.0001)
and month (F (1, 107) = 14.8724, p < 0.0002, Figure 4). After removing the first month post-
fledge and re-analyzing the data, the effect of age remained (F (1, 22) = 8.5859, p = 0.0077), but
the effect of month was no longer significant (F (1, 90) = 0.0767, p = 0.7824). With all data
included, percent overlap was significantly larger for sub-adults than for fledglings (F (1, 22) =
4.4521, p = 0.0465, Figure 5) suggesting that, opposite to our predictions, fledgling home ranges
shifted more than sub-adults. Percent overlap also increased with month (F (1, 84) = 33.3951, p
< 0.0001, Figure 5). Re-analyzing the data after removing the first month post-fledging
eliminated the significant effect of age (F (1, 22) = 0.2772, p = 0.6038), but the effect of month
remained (F (1, 67) = 8.5308, p = 0.0048). This suggests that fledglings, traveling with family
groups, as well as sub-adults, have dynamic, shifting home ranges that lack stable boundaries.
The effect of month suggests that initial shifts away from the nesting area were larger than shifts
over subsequent months.
It took a mean of 31.4 days (SD = 9.13, n = 14) for fledglings to reach their own average
daily movement during the fledgling period. However, visual examination of daily movement
distances (Figure 2) suggested that it may take 10 weeks for fledglings to maintain average levels
of mobility.
Home range area curves showed that most fledglings and sub-adults continued to expand
into new areas over the study period and lacked home ranges with stable boundaries (Figures 6-
39
8). This prevented a meaningful analysis on the minimum number of points needed to accurately
estimate home range size, as area continued to increase over the entire study period.
Discussion
The home range estimates for Mariana Crow family groups in this study (76 and 53 hectares for
MCP and LoCoH respectively) were similar to Morton et al.’s (1999) estimate of 64 hectares.
During 30, 60, and 90-day periods, sub-adult Mariana Crow home ranges were more than twice
the area of fledglings (84.03 ha vs. 38.33 ha). This difference is not likely attributed to mobility
since the first 31 days post-fledgling were removed from the data set for this analysis. In general,
dispersing sub-adult birds often lack stable home ranges and spend periods of time moving
nomadically, in search of resources or breeding territories (Penteriani et al. 2011). Sub-adult
Mariana Crows may be using large areas after dispersing from their natal territories for a number
of reasons, including an increase in exploratory behavior, a need to roam more widely to find
resources without intruding on areas occupied by breeding individuals, or a need to travel large
distances to find unpaired conspecifics or vacant nesting habitat.
While measures of total home range area over meaningful biological periods (such as the
fledgling period) are important for understanding habitat needs of a species, some authors
question the use of the home range asymptote as a neutral model for home range analysis.
Instead, it has been proposed that a multiscale home range concept, which has fractal properties
and is not expected to reach an area asymptote (Gautestad & Mysterud 1995), may be more
appropriate for understanding home range movement processes. Mariana Crow home ranges,
when measured cumulatively, increased over time. However, when home range areas were
measured in 30-day sequences within bird, they did not increase over time showing that shifts in
40
home range, from one 30-day period to the next, caused an increase in cumulative home ranges,
even though area-use on a monthly scale did not increase. Since the choice of 30-day home
ranges was arbitrary, it would be useful to analyze Mariana Crow spatial behavior at additional
temporal scales.
Sub-adult Mariana Crows are socially different from those of other non-cooperatively
breeding Corvus species. A study of dispersing juvenile Common Ravens (Corvus corax) found
that individuals made dispersal decisions based on their attraction to conspecifics and
anthropogenic food resources (Webb et al. 2009). In the relatively less gregarious New
Caledonian Crow (Corvus moneduloides), multiple generations of juveniles sometimes
accompanied their parents, and unrelated juveniles were often tolerated at feeding tables with
family groups (Holzhaider et al. 2011). Sub-adult Mariana Crows vocalize infrequently and are
most often observed alone (S. Faegre, unpublished data). While juveniles often appear reluctant
to move away from their parents (S. Faegre, pers. obs.), they do not appear to be strongly
attracted to non-parent conspecifics during the first several months post-dispersal. For example,
in this study, two pairs of siblings that were observed together during 75% and 69% of fledgling
observations, were observed together during 4% and 0% of post-dispersal (sub-adult)
observations. Interestingly, home range overlap of these same sibling pairs only decreased from
an average of 79% to 59%, suggesting that changes in behavior, rather than lack of home range
overlap, explain the lack of post-dispersal association between siblings.
In common ravens, the aggregation of non-breeding individuals can serve to overcome
the defenses of territorial individuals at rich, ephemeral food sources (Heinrich 1988, 2014). In
contrast, on Rota, where crows forage primarily on widely occurring insects and small animal
prey, it may be less advantageous to compete directly with territorial individuals for food. The
41
low density of conspecific non-breeders and the high potential cost of interactions with territorial
pairs may also be factor in the lack of juvenile aggregations among Mariana Crows.
Neighboring Mariana Crow pairs and family groups tended to avoid each other, despite
high levels of home range overlap. The home ranges of neighboring family groups overlapped by
an average of 46%, while indirect neighbors (which were still close enough to overlap but had a
different pair’s home range between them) overlapped an average of 37%. During this study,
individuals in more densely populated areas had as many as 3-4 direct neighbors and up to two
indirect neighbors. Therefore, a given family group would have the chance of interacting socially
with up to six additional pairs or family groups during the fledgling period. Despite the high
levels of overlap from multiple neighbors, neighboring family groups were rarely observed
together. When neighbors did come together, agonistic interactions between adults were
common (S. Faegre, pers. obs.).
Home range area curves and analysis of within-individual monthly home range area and
overlap revealed dynamic home ranges that did not reach area asymptotes over time. While this
was expected for dispersing sub-adults, the lack of stable boundaries in home ranges of
fledglings (traveling with their family groups) was surprising and indicates shifts in home range
that are atypical among territorial individuals.
Conclusions
Following natal dispersal, daily movements increased by an average of 19% and became more
variable, with occasional, large movements of up to 1.6 km in a day. The increased energy
expenditure of sub-adults, in addition to their shift to nutritional independence, and the risk of
42
encounters with hostile adults, may increase the risk of mortality during the first several months
following natal dispersal. This possibility should be investigated in studies of survivorship.
The dynamic nature of Mariana crow home ranges, with boundaries that shift over time,
rather than coalescing into stable areas with defined boundaries, could mean that food resources
are patchy and unpredictable, requiring frequent explorations into new areas. However, the same
dynamic pattern could result if food resources were plentiful throughout the home range and
movements were driven by social factors, such as maintaining distance from neighbors. A study
of habitat selection, measuring habitat use in relation to both food resources and neighbor
proximity would be useful for better understanding dynamic home ranges in Mariana Crows.
With a better understanding of dynamic home range characteristics of the crow,
conservation measures can be designed to best serve them. Currently, the threat of feral cat
predation is addressed primarily by trapping in the vicinity of active nests. Due to the high
reproductive rate of cats, trapping only in the vicinity of nests is questionable, as it may have no
significant impact on the overall population of cats within crow habitat. Additionally, this
method may fail to protect family groups, which shift their home range away the nest area
shortly after fledglings gain mobility. High first year mortality (Ha et al. 2011), much of which
occurs between six and 12 months post-fledgling (S. Faegre, unpublished data, Chapter 4),
suggests that habitat-wide protection measures will be necessary to address some of the largest
threats to species recovery.
43
Figures
Figure 2.1: Home Range area by age class and days post-fledging or post-dispersal
44
Figure 2.2: Daily movements of fledglings and sub-adults by week post- fledging or dispersal
Figure 2.3: Mean daily movement distance of fledglings and sub-adults with and without the first
10 weeks post-fledgling
45
Figure 2.4: Area of sequential 30-day home ranges over month post-fledging or post-dispersal.
Figure 2.5: Overlap in sequential 30-day home range (within bird) over time post-fledging or
post-dispersal.
46
Figure 2.6: Home range area curves for the entire fledgling period
Figure 2.7: Area curves for sub-adults tracked during this study. Dashed lines are individuals that
were captured at an unknown age post dispersal (all others begin on day one post- natal
dispersal)
47
Figure 2.8: area curves during the sub-adult (above) and fledgling (below) periods at equal
scales. Dashed lines are individuals that were captured at an unknown age post dispersal (all
others begin on day one post- natal dispersal)
48
Tables
Table 2.1: Home Range area of Mariana Crows
Mean (ha.) Range SD N
100% MCP Fledgling 76.47 35.83-162.15 38.04 17
100% LoCoH Fledgling 52.65 27.43-115.01 23.35 17
100% MCP Sub-adult 318.7 48.94-1410.01 412.52 10
100% LoCoH Sub-adult 140.62 23.6-558.92 160.73 10
Table 2.2: Percent of home range overlap between Mariana Crow neighbors and siblings
Mean (%) Range SD N
Adjacent neighbors 45.51 23.21-85.11 20.84 10
Non-adjacent neighbors 37.61 21.6-67.35 17.98 8
Siblings (fledgling) 78.83 54.05-100.0 18.87 4
Siblings (sub-adult) 59.15 45.43-80.8 15.16 4
49
Chapter 3: Habitat Selection in Mariana Crows
Introduction
Habitats are inherently dynamic, with resources and threats that vary over space and time,
generating strong selective pressure for appropriate habitat selection (Cody 1985, Morris 2003).
Habitat selection by a species influences survival and reproduction (Brown 1969), and ultimately
contributes to population regulation (Newton 1998, Morris 2003). Patterns of habitat use can
reveal resources that are critical to animal fitness, and allow inference into the process of habitat
selection (Hooten et al. 2013). Understanding habitat use and selection are key issues for both
ecologists and wildlife managers (Cody 1985, Mayor et al. 2009).
Habitat selection is a temporally and spatially scale-sensitive process, making the choice
of scale important for habitat selection studies (Mayor et al. 2009). The best approach to
determining correlation between resource densities and animal location data is a complex issue.
Hooten et al. (2013) notes that if the resource densities and home range use are developed as
separate data sets, then resource utilization functions (RUF) may be created to correlate between
the two, allowing for inference into habitat selection. Alternatively, he suggests that in some
cases it is better to use a resource selection function (RSF) to understand habitat selection
directly from resource data in a use vs. availability framework, in which the utilization
distribution is implicit to the analysis.
Habitat loss or degradation is a leading cause of decline in endangered birds worldwide
(Johnson 2007) and island ecosystems have suffered a disproportionate number of bird
extinctions (Steadman 2006). Information on habitat selection is critical during the designation
of protected areas, however this information is often lacking. The Mariana Islands are one such
50
area in which conservation and management efforts would be strengthened by gaining
knowledge of habitat selection of the endangered species (USFWS 2005).
The Mariana Islands belong to one of 30 archipelagos within Micronesia and Polynesia
that collectively are considered a “biodiversity hotspot” (Myers 2000, Brooks et al. 2002).
Within this stretch of Pacific Ocean, isolation and restricted range have led to exceptionally high
levels of endemism and also to some of the highest extinction rates on the planet (Brooks et al.
2002). The Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi) is a critically endangered forest bird that faces a high
risk of extinction (Ha et al. 2010, IUCN 2017). The crow is endemic to the islands of Rota and
Guam but was extirpated from Guam in the 1990s due to predation by the introduced Brown
Tree Snake (Boiga irregularus; Savidge 1987). The single remaining population of Mariana
Crows is confined to the island of Rota and consists of fewer than 200 individuals (Zarones et al.
2015; Kroner & Ha 2017). The Brown Tree Snake is not present on Rota, where the decline has
been attributed to habitat loss and degradation, persecution by humans, predation and
competition from introduced species, and inbreeding depression (Morton et al. 1999, Plentovich
et al. 2005, USFWS 2005, Wiewel et al. 2009, Sussman et al. 2015). Little evidence is available
to support these hypotheses, although recent evidence from radio-telemetry studies suggests that
predation from feral cats (Felis catus) may be an important cause of mortality (S. Faegre and R.
Ha, unpublished data).
During the 1990s, habitat removal and degradation from human causes and typhoons
were linked to the loss of territorial pairs and reduced nest success (Morton et al. 1999, Zarones
et al. 2015). Habitat loss and degradation continue to impact crows to some degree (e.g.
disturbance due to the illegal removal of trees, S. Faegre, pers. obs.), but it is unlikely that this is
a limiting factor for population recovery, because the percent forest cover is not greatly different
51
now, than it was in 1980 when the population was 1350. Knowledge of Mariana Crow habitat
use is essential for the management of remaining Mariana Crow habitat. While certain habitat
characteristics have been identified as important in Mariana Crow nest site selection (Morton et
al. 1999, Ha et al. 2011), the nesting area makes up a small percentage of a pair’s total home
range (Morton et al. 1999, S.F. unpublished data) and habitat selection outside of the nest area
has never been studied.
Habitat selection is defined as the disproportional use of a habitat relative to its
availability (Jones 2001). Within an individual’s home range, selection can be inferred by
evaluating habitat differences in areas of the home range that have disproportionally high and
low levels of use. Most animals use space heterogeneously and have areas of high-intensity use,
or core areas, within their home range, where movements are restricted to a smaller area than
expected, based on levels of mobility (Börger et al. 2008, Van Moorter et al. 2009). Core
areas may have stable habitat characteristics that make them particularly attractive to individuals
in the long term, or they may shift over time as resource abundance and social opportunities
change (Benhamou & Lambert 2012).
Despite the dynamic, shifting nature of Mariana Crow home ranges (S. Faegre,
unpublished data, Chapter 2), family groups have small, intensively used core areas, to which
they return irregularly during the 8-month average fledgling period. Food needs are high for
parents with dependent offspring, and predation risks are particularly high for juveniles in the
post-fledging period (Cox 2014, Naef-Daenzer & Grüebler 2016). Because of these selection
pressures, we expected food resources, predators, and the vegetation characteristics supporting
them, to be the most important variables driving patterns of habitat use within the home ranges
of Mariana Crow family groups.
52
While resource utilization functions are the preferred method of analyzing habitat use
within the home range, the necessity of a background layer of important environmental
measurements was problematic at our study site, where land-use and habitat types have not been
delineated in enough detail to reflect the selection process of our study species. Additionally, we
were unable to measure prey variables on a large enough scale to create a gradient over each
animal’s utilization distribution. Due to these constraints, we confined habitat measurements to
core and outer areas of each home range, to try to capture the potential extremes, rather than a
gradient of values throughout the entire utilization distribution.
Based on the predictions of optimal foraging theory, we hypothesized that the frequency
of use by family groups would be explained, in part, by variations in food resource density and
vegetation characteristics supporting key prey species. We estimated the relative abundance of
three common prey taxa: geckos, Coenobita hermit crabs, and Vespidea paper wasp larvae (S.
Faegre unpublished data, Chapter 1), and predicted that core areas would have higher densities of
these items than outer areas. We also estimated abundance of coconut crabs (Birgus latro), rats
(Rattus sp.), feral cats (Felis catus), and junglefowl (Gallus gallus), and hypothesized that
activity of predators (cats) and potential competitors (rats and junglefowl) would be lower in
core areas than outer areas. Since vegetation characteristics may co-vary with animal variables,
we hypothesized that vegetation characteristics would also vary between core and outer areas;
however, we did not have specific predictions about the direction of these relationships.
Methods
Study area
53
Rota is the second most southerly island after Guam in the Mariana Islands, Western Micronesia
(1409’N, 14512’E). The 85-km2 island is volcanic in origin with uplifted limestone terraces.
The climate is tropical, with high humidity. Wet and dry seasons are typically from July-
November (wet) and January-May (dry) with rainfall measuring from a minimum of 3.69
mm/month in March to a maximum of 13.37 inches/month in September (Lander & Guard
2003). Rota is located within the Western Pacific typhoon belt and experiences typhoons
periodically but no typhoons occurred during this study.
Radio-tracking
Between March 2010 and February 2013, 11 Mariana Crows were radio-tagged within several
days of fledging and tracked using Holohil RI-2CT VHF transmitters. Transmitter/harness
packages were 3-4% of the body weight of each crow and were fitted to individuals using a
backpack design with a weak link system incorporated. This study included home ranges of
tagged fledglings and their family groups. The fledgling period was defined as the period of
nutritional dependence on their parents, prior to natal dispersal. During daily or bi-weekly
observations, tagged crows were observed and social interactions and other behaviors were
recorded to determine dispersal status.
Crows were tracked until death or until failure of the radio-tag, and only individuals that
survived for at least six months post-fledging were included in this study. A cut-off of six
months was chosen based on the deaths of several birds shortly after six months and because a
six-month period was considered adequate to define high and low use areas within the family
group’s home range. When siblings were radio-tagged, only one sibling from the pair was used
in the study to avoid pseudoreplication.
54
Plot selection
We chose the fixed K local convex hull method (LoCoH; Getz & Wilmers 2004) to characterize
home ranges because this method represents space use more accurately within landscapes
characterized by sharp topographical features and fragmented habitats (Getz & Wilmers 2004,
Getz et al. 2007). Furthermore, unlike kernel-based methods, the fixed K LoCoH is robust to
changes in the smoothing parameter (Getz et al. 2007), reducing the potential for biased results
and improving the accuracy of inter-individual comparisons.
During June 2013-January 2014 we sampled vegetation characteristics and predator and
prey abundance in frequently used “core” areas and infrequently used “outer” areas of crow
home ranges (Figure 1). After exploring the differential exclusion of habitat from home ranges
by varying the outer boundaries between 100% and 95%, we chose the 98% isopleth as the most
representative of total home ranges for the family groups in this study. We defined the outer 10%
of the home range (between the 88% and 98% isopleths) as the outer area, and the inner 50%
isopleth as the core area. The area between the 50% and 88% isopleths was not sampled. The
first 31 days post-fledge were removed from this analysis because this is a period when
fledglings are severely restricted in their habitat use due to limited mobility (S. Faegre,
unpublished data, Chapter 2).
Due to limitations in the number of plots we could sample, we employed a use-only
design, restricting our sampling locations to points in which individuals were actually observed
during radio-tracking. This ensured that plots were located in habitat used by that individual,
increasing our ability to distinguish between variations in food density at locations where crows
had been observed.
55
We randomly selected six points from telemetry locations with three in the core and three
in the outer areas of each home range. These formed center points for 289 square-meter circular
plots (9.6 m radii). Center points were adjusted by up to 10 meters, as needed, to avoid including
large cliffs or areas of non-habitat (e.g. fields, roads, etc.). Sheer, non-traversable cliffs were
avoided for practical reasons, and areas without woody vegetation were considered non-habitat
and were thus excluded from plots. To increase the probability of representing diverse habitats,
points were separated by a minimum of 50 meters in core areas and 150 meters in outer areas.
These distances were chosen by exploring the maximum spread of points that did not result in
forced placement of plots along edges of the smaller core and outer areas.
Resource Measurements
Within each plot, we counted and identified all woody stems (live or dead) reaching breast
height. The height of each stem (understory, canopy, or super canopy) was noted and stems
greater than 10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) were measured. We estimated canopy and
super canopy heights using a rangefinder.
We counted common animal species, including prey items (geckos, paper wasp larvae,
and hermit crabs), predators (feral cats), and other animals that were common and had uncertain
relationships to Mariana Crows (rats, coconut crabs, and junglefowl). We measured paper wasp
larvae abundance by counting the number of paper wasp nests within each plot.
Geckos surveys were completed from June-November 2013, using visual searches which
were conducted in pairs, consisting of one core and one outer area plot from a single home range
that were surveyed sequentially on the same night. Visual gecko surveys were carried out using
56
methods similar to Wiles et. al (1990). Between 19:30 and 23:30 an observer walked slowly
through the study plot, using a high-powered headlamp to scan for geckos in trees and on the
ground. In addition to the visual search, the observer used a 2-meter long stick to agitate
vegetation, allowing the detection of hidden geckos that fled from hiding places due to
mechanical disturbance. The duration of gecko surveys was 40 minutes per plot. Geckos were
captured by hand whenever possible; after capture each animal was identified, weighed and
released. Geckos that were observed but not captured were identified when possible and their
weight was estimated. Gecko abundance measures included counts and total grams of geckos per
plot. Gecko species assemblages were measured by number of species per plot, as well as
number of individuals of each of the six species that occurred within plots.
Between December 2013 and August 2014, we surveyed hermit crabs, coconut crabs,
rats, cats, and junglefowl in plots, using trail cameras to record animal activity at bait boxes over
a 5-day period. Bait boxes were filled with large chunks of mature coconut, with the inner husk
attached. Additionally, a can of tuna was dumped in front of each bait box as an additional
attractant. The bait boxes measured 8x5x5 inches and were made of two layers of 1/2x1 inch
hardware cloth. The mesh size was chosen with the intention of excluding Coconut Crabs from
accessing the bait, while allowing hermit crabs to reach it. However, large Coconut Crabs were
able to bend the wire mesh and access small amounts of bait. Each bait box sat on top of a black,
rectangular piece of tarp, measuring 35x21 inches. The bait box was arranged on the tarp such
that a 10X21 inch portion of the tarp lay flat on the ground in front of the bait box, a 14x21 inch
portion rose vertically behind the box, and six inches of tarp remained on either side of the bait
box (Figure 2). Trail cameras were attached to a tree, approximately two meters from the bait
box. All plots within a given home range were sampled simultaneously.
57
Due to the slow movements of hermit crabs, they often failed to trigger the trail cameras’
motion-sensors, therefore trail cameras were set to time lapse, taking photos every 10 minutes, in
addition to motion-detection settings, which allowed for the detection of other animals that
approached the bait box (e.g. cats, rats and birds). While time lapse photos were useful for
measuring the activity of animals that were present much of the time (such as hermit crabs, rats
and Coconut Crabs), they did not collect representative data on other species.
Trail camera photos were coded in different ways depending on the animal species. For
hermit crabs, Coconut Crabs and rats, we only coded photos taken at 10-minute time lapse
intervals during the first 24 hours that the camera was in place, and only animals touching the
tarp were counted. However, after finding that Coconut Crabs often excluded rats from the tarp,
we added a variable in which we counted any rat in the photo. Cats and junglefowl appeared less
frequently and rarely touched the tarp; therefore, we counted all occurrences of cat and
junglefowl activity over the 5-day period (including both time lapse photos, and photos triggered
by the motion sensor).
In addition to resource measurements, we measured the distance of each plot to the
nearest road.
Statistical Analyses
We conducted a 2-stage analysis of results: 1) Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was
used to reduce a large number of variables into independent factors, with separate PCAs for prey
and vegetation variables, and 2) and Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) was used to identify
which variables most accurately identified plots as either core versus outer areas of home ranges.
58
Species (animal or vegetation) that were counted in less than half the plots were eliminated from
the analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted in SYSTAT v10 (Wilkinson 19xx).
We used the Shapiro–Wilk test to check for normality of animal counts and vegetation
characteristics and transformed variables using log-n, log-10 or square root transformations
where necessary to achieve normal distributions. As some of the 14 animal, and 34 vegetation
variables were likely to be correlated, we performed two PCAs to generate two sets of
uncorrelated variables. We then used a scree plot to select animal and vegetation characteristics
that accounted for the most variance and used the resulting five animal factors and 10 vegetation
factors in a DFA to test which factors best predicted whether a plot was in a core or outer area.
Jack-knifed classification percentages were reported in all cases.
Results
All animal taxa surveyed, except junglefowl, were found in the home ranges of each of the 11
family groups in this study. We identified six gecko species, including Lepidodactylus lugubrus,
Gehyra mutilata, Nactus pelagicus, Perochirus ateles, Gehyra oceanica, and Hemidactylus
frenatus. However, only G. oceanica and G. Mutilata occurred frequently enough (more than
half the plots) to be included in the analysis at the species level, while the others were included
in the measures of total gecko numbers, mass, and species diversity. Coenobita hermit crabs and
Vespidae paper wasps were not identified to species.
Principal components analysis yielded 10 independent vegetation factors and five prey
factors (Tables 1 & 2), explaining 74.05% and 80.61% of the total variance in vegetation and
prey respectively. There was high variability in many of the habitat factors measured. For
example, among plots, hermit crab counts ranged from 0 to 23 and gecko mass ranged from 0 to
59
190 grams. However, the results of the DFA suggested that none of the prey or vegetation factors
were predictive of core and outer areas (Jackknifed Classification, Wilks Lambda=0.6739, df =
15, 1, 59, approximate F = 1.459, p = 0.163).
Discussion
We were unable to identify any distinguishing characteristics of core versus outer areas of
Mariana Crow home ranges. Four hypotheses that may explain this result include: 1) Mariana
Crows are not food or habitat-limited and other factors (social factors, memory/familiarity with
place) are primary drivers in habitat selection within the home range, 2) Differences in core and
outer areas occur at the landscape level and could not be detected within this use-only design, 3)
important prey, predator, or vegetation characteristics, remained unmeasured, and 4) important
animal variables were ephemeral and measurements taken at a later date were not representative
of characteristics during the time crows were using the area. Memory, and familiarity with place,
are key in the spatial behavior and habitat selection of many species (Van Moorter et al. 2009,
Wolf et al. 2009, Piper 2011, van Overveld et al. 2011, Van Moorter et al. 2013), and are likely
to be important factors for long-lived species with high site fidelity, such as the Mariana Crow.
The lack of consistent vegetation and prey differences in core and outer areas in this
study may be an accurate representation of habitat within this use-only design, suggesting that
adequate prey and forest characteristics are present throughout used portions of the home range.
Our findings within plots can be generalized to the portions of core and outer areas that are used
by crows, but not to the entirety of areas bounded by core or outer area polygons. One limitation
of the use-only sampling method is that we were unable to determine if the amount and
distribution of non-habitat or unused habitat within core and outer areas influenced differential
60
use of the larger core and outer areas by the birds. Given that we did not find differences
between used portions of habitat in core and outer areas, an investigation of larger-scale
differences is warranted.
Mariana crows may evaluate different sets of variables when selecting habitat in areas
that are occupied by conspecifics, as compared to vacant habitat. Given the high percentage of
overlap between neighboring home ranges, and the agonistic interactions that tend to occur when
neighbors coincide at the same location (S. Faegre, unpublished data, Chapter 2), it is likely that
spacing of conspecifics is a strong driver of habitat selection within the home range. In this
study, only one family group’s home range included outer areas that were free of neighboring
conspecifics. Due to neighbor overlap, the core areas of family groups were often suspected (and
in one case, confirmed; Figure 1) to be outer areas of one or more other neighboring family
groups, which may have confounded the distinction between core and outer areas in this study.
Habitat selection is often density dependent (Mobæk et al. 2009, Beest et al. 2015) and,
while the low population density of crows on Rota makes density-dependent processes less
likely, a future study of Mariana Crows could be designed to include the effects of conspecific
density and proximity. For example, habitat selection could be measured in low-density areas,
where crows do not have direct neighbors or, alternatively, a study in high-density crow habitat
could involve quantification conspecifics.
Even seldom used portions of the home range can be critical. In this study, for example,
one pair’s nesting area fell outside of their 98% home range during the 7-month period of
fledgling dependency (Figure 1). Overall, the lack of distinguishing habitat characteristics in core
61
versus outer areas suggests that all portions of Mariana Crow home ranges have important
resources and that future study is needed to better understand Mariana crow habitat selection.
62
Figures
Figure 3.1: Pre-dispersal home ranges of Mariana Crow fledglings (above: neighboring family
groups; below: family group whose nest is outside of their 98% home range)
63
Figure 3.2: Bait boxes at two plots
64
Tables
Table 3.1: Vegetation and Landscape Components
Factor
loading
Variance explained by
rotated component
% of variance
explained
Pandanus sp. (count and
DBH)
-0.93 4.55 13.38
Potential nest trees (count) 0.79 2.56 7.54
Understory characteristics
(density, species)
0.87 3.33 9.79
Ficus sp. (count, DBH) -0.90 2.38 7.01
Canopy characteristics
(height, species)
0.82 2.40 7.07
Distance to road 0.78 2.33 6.84
Neisosperma oppositifolia
(count, DBH)
-0.73 2.12 6.23
Square area dead stems 0.84 2.06 6.07
Psychotria mariana (count) -0.76 1.96 5.77
Tree species 0.87 1.48 4.35
Total 74.05
Table 3.2: Animal Components
Factor
loading
Variance explained
by
Rotated component
% of variance
explained
Geckos (G. Oceanica, count,
mass)
0.95 2.48 17.72
Rats 0.96 2.60 18.59
Hermit crabs 0.98 2.66 16.12
Cats 0.87 2.134 15.19
Gecko species (G. Mutilata, total) -0.88 1.82 12.99
Total 80.61
65
Chapter 4: Correlates of First Year Survival in Mariana Crows
Introduction
Differential juvenile survival explains a large part of the variance in lifetime reproductive
success, yet the processes driving variation in survival are poorly understood (Cox 2014).
Among altricial birds, the post-fledging period is a particularly critical time, during which body
condition and behavior of fledglings are strong predictors of mortality (Naef-Daenzer &
Grüebler 2016). The age and level of physical development at fledging vary greatly between
species but little within species (Roff et al. 2005, Martin 2015), suggesting that these
characteristics have evolved in response to species-specific pressures in most birds. Within
species, mass and wing length correlate positively with survival during the early fledgling period
(Cox 2014, Naef-Daenzer & Grüebler 2016). These traits are closely related to energy intake,
which relates directly to resource availability. While habitat characteristics, such as food
availability, are the most commonly cited factors affecting nestling and fledgling condition
(Cody 1985, Cox 2014, Naef-Daenzer & Grüebler 2016), other characteristics, such as genetic
heterozygosity, parent quality, hatching order, sex, and some types of disease, can be largely
independent of habitat factors, and can also have direct effects on fledgling condition, behavior,
and survival (Maness & Anderson 2013, Cain et al. 2014, Zárybnická et al. 2015).
In addition to its direct effect on fledgling body condition, resource distribution and
predictability are important drivers of both spatial and social behavior (Barraquand & Murrell
2012, Macdonald & Johnson 2015). Energy limitation, such as lack of sufficient resources in the
home range, can affect spatial behavior by driving birds to travel longer distances to find food, or
66
by preventing them from making the necessary movements due to poor physical condition (Naef-
Daenzer & Grüebler 2008, Rechetelo et al. 2016). The feedback loop between energy limitations
and spatial behavior can perpetuate the differential in fledgling body condition over time. Spatial
behavior, including home range size and daily movements, have been proposed as one proximate
mechanism which can mediate the effect of fledgling condition on later survival (Naef-Daenzer
& Grüebler 2008), however this relationship has rarely been studied.
Most studies of post-fledging survival in altricial birds account only for the first 4-8
weeks post-fledging, and the highest mortality rates are usually found during the first three
weeks (Maness & Anderson 2013, Cox et al. 2014). Predation is a common cause of post-
fledging mortality, and measures of physical development and fitness (wing and mass) can have
direct consequences in predator avoidance (Haché et al. 2014, Naef-Daenzer & Grüebler 2016).
Few previous studies have examined the relationships between fledgling characteristics and
survival in a sample of birds that survived beyond the first eight weeks post-fledging, and some
authors have hypothesized that fledgling characteristics are less likely to impact survival beyond
the early post-fledging period (Maness & Anderson 2013).
The Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi) is a critically endangered forest bird that faces a
high risk of extinction (Ha et al. 2010, IUCN 2017), in part due to low first year survival (Ha et
al. 2011). The crow is endemic to the islands of Rota and Guam but was extirpated from Guam
in the 1990s due to predation by the introduced Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularus; Savidge
1987). The single remaining population of Mariana Crows is confined to the island of Rota and
consists of fewer than 200 individuals (Zarones et al. 2012, Kroner & Ha 2017). The decline on
Rota has been attributed to habitat loss and degradation, persecution by humans, predation and
67
competition from introduced species, and inbreeding depression (Morton et al. 1999, Plentovich
et al. 2005, USFWS 2005, Wiewel et al. 2009, Sussman et al. 2015).
We studied the relationship between body measurements at fledging, spatial behavior,
and first year survival in radio-tagged Mariana Crows. Like other passerines, Mariana Crows
have high mortality rates during the first several weeks post-fledging; however, the species has a
long period of post-fledging parental care (eight months average, Morton et al. 1999) and re-
sighting data from color banded birds suggests that mortality may remain high throughout the
fledgling period (R. Ha, unpublished data). In a sub-set of individuals that survived a minimum
of four months post-fledging (the time period needed to collect sufficient home range data), we
studied the relationships between spatial behavior, fledgling characteristics and survival. We
tested the hypotheses that, 1) mass and wing at fledging would be smaller in birds that died, 2)
the relationship between physical measurements and survival would persist, but with less
strength, in the sub-set of individuals that survived at least 4 months post-fledging, and 3) that
post-fledging home range size and daily movements would correlate positively with physical
measurements and be larger in birds that survived their first year.
Methods
Study system
Rota is the second most southerly island after Guam in the Mariana Islands, Western
Micronesia (1409’N, 14512’E). The 85-km2 island is volcanic in origin with uplifted limestone
terraces. The climate is tropical, with high humidity. Wet and dry seasons are typically from
July-November (wet) and January-May (dry) with rainfall measuring from a minimum of 3.69
inches/month in March to a maximum of 13.37 inches/month in September (Lander & Guard
68
2003). Rota is located within the Western Pacific typhoon belt and experiences typhoons
periodically.
Radio-tracking
From 2009-2016, we radio-tagged 24 fledgling Mariana Crows with Holohil RI-2CT
VHF transmitters, which had an average battery lifetime of 12 months. Transmitters with
harnesses were 3-4% of the body weight of each crow and were attached using a backpack
design with a weak link system incorporated. Crows were tracked until death or failure of the
transmitter. Twenty-two of these fledglings (from 18 family groups) were tracked until death or
throughout their first year post-fledging. Twenty birds had measurements taken within 4 days of
fledging; only these individuals were used in analyses of physical characteristics. Two fledglings
were tracked throughout their predispersal periods, for five and seven months post-fledging, but
their survival after dispersal was unknown so they were included in correlation analyses but not
mortality analyses. When siblings were radio-tagged, both were used in the analyses of physical
characteristics and survival but, to avoid pseudoreplication, only one sibling from each pair was
used in the analyses involving post-fledging home range or daily movements.
Crows were classified as fledglings during the period of nutritional dependence on their
parents, and as sub-adults after reaching independence from their parents but prior to their first
nesting attempt. Nutritional independence from the parents almost always coincides with
dispersal from the natal territory, which occurs at an average age of eight months post-fledging
(Morton et al. 1999, S. Faegre, unpublished data). During daily or bi-weekly observations,
tagged crows were observed from a distance of 2-10 meters. Social interactions and other
behaviors were recorded to determine dispersal status.
69
Banding and Measurements
Fledgling Mariana Crows were captured by hand and banded with an aluminium USFWS band
and up to three plastic color bands. Measurements, including mass, wing cord (unflattened), tail
length, tarsus length, and two bill measurements were also taken (Pyle 1987).
Data Analysis
To determine whether mass or wing length at fledging was associated with first year survival, we
used two independent t-tests with survival (dead vs. alive at 1 year post-fledge) as the grouping
variable and either mass or wing length as the test variable. We also conducted t-tests for the
sub-set of individuals that survived 4+ months post-fledging. We did not employ a correction
factor to p-values, due to the risk of inflating an already-increased risk of making a type II error
due to low sample size (Nakagawa 2004).
We used three linear mixed effects models to explore the effects of time post-fledging
(30, 60, 90, and 120 days) and first year survival (dead vs. alive) on three dependent variables:
Home range size, core area size, and daily movement distance. Bird ID was used as a random
effect for all models. Home range measures were square-root transformed and distance measures
were cube-root transformed to satisfy the assumption of homogeneity of variance.
We computed Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients to assess the relationships
between 1) home range and wing, 2) home range and mass, 3) mass and wing, 4) daily
movements and wing, 5) daily movements and mass, and 6) daily movements and home range.
While these data came from a total of 24 birds, each type of measurement (body size, home
range, and daily movements) was available for a smaller sub-set of the total. Therefore, the
correlations were done separately from one another to maximize the sample size in each. For
70
these analyses, home ranges and daily movements were calculated from the first 30 days post-
fledgling.
Analyses were done using IBM SPSS Statistics 19 and package nlme in R (Pinheiro et al.
2017).
Results
Twelve of 22 crows died during their first year post-fledging (Table 1). Only one bird died
during the first three weeks post-fledging, while four died between months one and four, and six
died between months six and 12. Eight of the 10 crows that survived their first year were
recruited into the breeding population by 2017.
Birds that survived had longer wings (M = 192.11 mm, SD = 6.85) than those that died
(M = 179.18 mm, SD = 10.57, t (18) = 3.159, p = 0.005), but there was no significant effect of
mass on survival (t (18) = 1.23, p = 0.233). For the sub-sample of birds that survived at least four
months post-fledging, the effect of wing length on survival remained (t (13) = 4.219, p = 0.001)
while the effect of mass remained non-significant.
Birds that survived had larger home ranges (M = 31.96 ha, SE = 3.52) than those that died
(M = 22.21 ha, SE = 3.52, F (1, 13) = 4.219, p = 0.001). Home range size also increased with
days post-fledge (F (3, 28) = 86.10, p < 0.0001). Core area size (50% isopleth) increased with
days post-fledge (F (3,38) = 40.15, p < 0.0001, Figure 2), but there was not a significant effect of
survival (F (1,13) = 2.86, p = 0.11).
A visual examination of home range area curves (cumulative home range) for fledglings
during their entire pre-dispersal period suggested that the difference in home range area, for birds
71
that died vs. survived, was greatest during the first several months post-fledgling and declined as
the birds aged (Figure 3). In two cases, the home range areas of fledglings that later died
increased dramatically around 160 days post-fledging due to loss of one parent, and the
continued persistence of the fledgling in following the remaining parent, as the parent ranged
into new areas, presumably in search of a new mate.
Birds that survived had longer daily movements (M = 204.85 ha, SE = 6.51) than those
that died (M = 154.91 ha, SE = 5.96 (F (1, 6) = 24.515, p = 0.003, Figure 4), and individuals
increased their daily movement distance with age post-fledge (F (3, 30) = 59.67, p < 0.001).
Additionally, there were correlations between wing and daily movements (r = 0.652, n = 13, p =
0.016), wing and home range (r = 0.513, n = 15, p = 0.05), wing and mass (r = 0.577, n = 19, p =
0.01), and home range and daily movements (r = 0.565, n = 15, p = 0.028, Table 2). There was
no significant correlation between mass and home range (r = 0.227, n = 15, p = 0.416), or mass
and daily distance (r = 0.115, n = 13, p = 0.709).
Discussion
Fifty-five percent of fledglings in this study died during their first year post-fledging and half of
these deaths occurred between months six and 12, just before or after natal dispersal. Among 20
birds that were measured within four days of fledging, wing cords varied from 166-200 mm. All
six individuals with wing cords of less than 180 mm died during their first year post-fledging. Of
the 14 individuals with wing cords greater than 180 mm, 71% survived.
The majority of deaths were ruled cat predations, based on the appearance and locations
of the remains. Reduced wing length and spatial movements in birds that died suggests that
either delayed development or early fledging affected spatial behavior and led to increased
72
susceptibility to predation. However, since none of the crows in this study were depredated until
long after flight feather growth was finished, reduced fledgling wing length and spatial behaviors
may also be indicators of underlying issues (e.g. inbreeding, illness, habitat quality, parent
quality) that cause long-term susceptibility to predation.
Unlike most passerine species, the stage of development at fledging varies greatly among
individual Mariana Crows, with wing cords ranging from 145-203 mm, when measured within
four days of fledging (R. Ha unpublished data). Since predation pressure is one of the main
forces shaping the evolution of species-specific fledgling characteristics (Roff et al. 2005, Martin
2015), the Mariana Crow’s evolutionary history, on islands without native predators, may
explain its intraspecific variability at the fledgling stage. Large nestlings often hopped in and out
of their nest during the days prior to fledging, and most fledglings were first found within several
meters from their nest (S. Faegre, pers. obs.), suggesting that force-fledging (by predators or
other disturbance) is unlikely to be a cause for this variability in development of fledgling
Mariana Crows.
Few studies have examined the relationship between animal fitness (measured by
survivorship or by phenotypic or genotypic variations) and home range size. Cain et al. (2014)
found that multi-locus heterozygosity correlated positively with home range size in the critically
endangered Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), while Beckman and Lill (2016) found a
correlation between number of teats (a proxy for reproductive potential) and home range size in
female agile antechinuses (Antechinus agilis). Naef-Daenzer and Grüebler (2008) found that
home ranges of Great Tit (Parus major) fledglings with larger mass were nearly twice the size of
those with low mass, and that frequency and speed of movements within the home range were
similarly affected by body condition. The results of the current study show that Mariana Crow
73
home ranges were 33% smaller, and daily movements were 31% shorter, for family groups of
fledglings that died, compared to those that survived their first year. Daily movements and home
range area were positively correlated with wing length, suggesting that decreased spatial
behavior during the first 30 days post-fledging was due to decreased flight ability.
During daily behavioral observations, radio-tagged fledglings were accompanied by an
average of 1.66 parents (S. Faegre, unpublished data), suggesting that family units spend most of
their time together and move through their home ranges as a group. A fledgling’s inability or
unwillingness to follow a parent may impact parent movement decisions and home range of the
family group, especially early in the fledgling period when fledglings rely entirely on parental
feedings.
Home range area curves for fledglings (Figure 3) shed some light on this issue. While the
home range area during the first 120 days post-fledging is dramatically smaller in birds that died,
home range areas become more similar after 120 days. Daily movements showed a similar
pattern, with differences between groups leveling out after 90 days post-fledging (Figure 4). This
decrease in difference over time may be due to the accumulation of other factors that impact
parent movement decisions, such as the loss of a parent, or a change in the parent-fledgling
relationship. For example, parents may reduce their attendance to older fledglings that fail to
follow them in their normal movements (S. Faegre, pers. obs.).
The earliest dispersal in our study occurred at 120 days post-fledging, indicating that
some fledglings have the ability to be nutritionally independent of adults at this age. After 120
days, parents may become more attuned to their own needs than those of their fledglings, which
74
could cause home ranges of fledglings to shift and enlarge if they continue to follow their parents
beyond this point.
Conclusions
Future work should aim to uncover the mechanisms behind this study’s findings of an
enduring relationship between fledgling characteristics and first year survival. To test the
resource limitation hypothesis, data could be collected on resource availability and quality of
parental care in pairs with nestlings, to look for correlations between resources, parental care,
and fledgling physical and behavioral characteristics. To test the “poor quality fledglings
hypothesis”, a study could collect data on wing cord, home range, and survivorship for
sequential sets of offspring from known pairs, to determine if fledgling home ranges and
measurements vary with survivorship when area/territory and parent identity are controlled for.
Additionally, it would be valuable to compare inbreeding coefficients of individuals that died
versus survived their first year post-fledging. If future studies support the resource limitation
hypothesis, we recommend supplemental feeding during the nestling and early fledgling period
to improve fledgling outcomes.
75
Figures
Figure 4.1: 100% home range area (cumulative) in birds that survived versus died during their
first year post-fledging
76
Figure 4.2: 50% core area (cumulative) in birds that survived versus died during their first year
post-fledging
77
Figure 4.3: Data-area curves for the entire pre-dispersal period of fledglings who died versus
survived their first year. Area curves marked with * have increases associated with the loss of
one parent and search for new mate (other ranges had two parents throughout).
78
Figure 4.4: Daily movements during the first 120 days post-fledging for individuals that died vs.
survived
79
Tables
Table 1. Causes of Death in Radio-tagged Juvenile Mariana Crows
Bird ID Age at death or
capture for rehab
(d post-fledge)
Cause
84477236 15 Hepatitis (National Wildlife Health Center- Honolulu
Field Station necropsy, 2010)
84477243 39 Unknown- carcass not found
84477218 51 Unknown- carcass not found
99403011 63 Probable cat predation
84477232 92 Probable cat predation
99403012 185 Probable cat predation
99403013 192 Probable cat predation
84477240 220 Unknown- carcass decayed and scavenged
84477248 222 Loss of flight due to severe feather damage and possible
injury; taken into captivity for rehabilitation
84477234 234 Probable cat predation
84477238 313 Probable cat predation
99403007 349 Probable cat predation
Table 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlations in Fledgling Aga.
Measurements r n p
Home range and daily movement 0.565 15 *0.028
Mass and wing 0.577 19 *0.01
Wing and daily movement 0.652 13 *0.016
Mass and daily movement 0.115 13 0.709
Wing and home range 0.513 15 *0.05
Mass and home range 0.227 15 0.416
80
References
Amidon, F.A. (2000). Habitat relationships and life history of the Rota bridled white-eye (Zosterops
rotensis). Thesis. Blackburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. I., Weber, S., Szabadvari, A., Bugnyar, T., and Kacelnik, A.
(2014). Social transmission of tool use and tool manufacture in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua
goffini). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1793), 20140972.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0972.
Banko, P. C., Camp, R. J., Farmer, C., Brinck, K. W., Leonard, D. L., and Stephens, R. M. (2013).
Response of Palila and other subalpine Hawaiian forest bird species to prolonged drought
and habitat degradation by feral ungulates. Biological Conservation, 157, 70-77. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.013.
Barraquand, F., & Murrell, D. J. (2012). Evolutionarily stable consumer home range size in relation
to resource demography and consumer spatial organization. Theoretical ecology, 5(4), 567-
589.
Beaty, J.J. (1967). Guam’s remarkable birds. South Pacific Bulletin. 17: 37-40.
Beckman, J., & Lill, A. (2016). Space use by female agile antechinus: are teat number and home-
range size linked? Wildlife Research, 43(4), 348-357.
Beest, F. M., McLoughlin, P. D., Mysterud, A., & Brook, R. K. (2015). Functional responses in
habitat selection are density dependent in a large herbivore. Ecography.
Benhamou, S., & Riotte-Lambert, L. (2012). Beyond the Utilization Distribution: Identifying home
range areas that are intensively exploited or repeatedly visited. Ecological Modelling, 227,
112-116.
BirdLife International (2013). Corvus hawaiiensis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 01 June 2014.
Bluff, L. A., Troscianko, J., Weir, A.A., Kacelnik, A., and Rutz, C. (2010). Tool use by wild New
Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides at natural foraging sites. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1686), 1377-1385. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1953.
Blumstein, D. T. (2002). Moving to suburbia: ontogenetic and evolutionary consequences of life on
predator‐free islands. Journal of Biogeography, 29(5‐6), 685-692. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-
2699.2002.00717.x.
Blumstein, D. T., Daniel, J. C., and Springett, B. P. (2004). A test of the multi-Predator hypothesis:
Rapid loss of antipredator behavior after 130 years of isolation. Ethology, 110(11), 919-934.
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.01033.x
81
Börger, L., Dalziel, B. D., & Fryxell, J. M. (2008). Are there general mechanisms of animal home
range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecology letters, 11(6), 637-
650.
Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S., and Bradshaw, C. J. (2008). Synergies among extinction drivers under
global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(8), 453-460. doi:
10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.011.
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., Rylands, A. B.,
Konstant, W. R., ... & Hilton‐Taylor, C. (2002). Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots
of biodiversity. Conservation biology, 16(4), 909-923.
Brown, J. L. (1969). Territorial behavior and population regulation in birds: a review and re-
evaluation. The Wilson Bulletin, 293-329.
Brumm, H., and Teschke, I. (2012). Juvenile Galápagos Pelicans increase their foraging success by
copying adult behaviour. PloS one, 7(12), e51881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051881.
Burt, W. H. (1943). Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of
mammalogy, 24(3), 346-352.
Cain, B., Wandera, A. B., Shawcross, S. G., Edwin Harris, W., STEVENS‐WOOD, B. A. R. R. Y.,
Kemp, S. J., ... & Watts, P. C. (2014). Sex‐Biased Inbreeding Effects on Reproductive
Success and Home Range Size of the Critically Endangered Black
Rhinoceros. Conservation biology, 28(2), 594-603.
Chalfoun, A. D., & Martin, T. E. (2007). Assessments of habitat preferences and quality depend on
spatial scale and metrics of fitness. Journal of applied ecology, 44(5), 983-992.
Cody, M. L. (Ed.). (1985). Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press.
Cox, W. A., Thompson, F. R., Cox, A. S., & Faaborg, J. (2014). Post‐fledging survival in passerine
birds and the value of post‐fledging studies to conservation. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 78(2), 183-193.
Cristol, D. A., and Switzer, P. V. (1999). Avian prey-dropping behavior. II. American crows and
walnuts. Behavioral Ecology, 10(3), 220-226. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.3.220
Engen, S., and Stenseth, N. C. (1989). Age-specific optimal diets and optimal foraging tactics: a
life-historic approach. Theoretical population biology, 36(3), 281-295.
Enoksson, B. (1988). age-related and sex-related differences in dominance and foraging behaviour
of nuthatches Sitta europaea. Animal Behaviour, 36(1), 231-238. doi: 10.1016/S0003-
3472(88)80266-5.
Faegre, S., R.R. Ha, D. Hubl, L. Ware, D. Wiitala (2016). University of Washington annual report
for USFWS.
82
Fritz, J., and Kotrschal, K. (1999). Social learning in common ravens, Corvus corax. Animal
Behaviour, 57(4), 785-793. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.1035.
Gautestad, A. O., & Mysterud, I. (1995). The home range ghost. Oikos, 195-204.
George, A. D., O'Connell, T. J., Hickman, K. R., and Leslie Jr., D. M. (2013). Food availability in
exotic grasslands: a potential mechanism for depauperate breeding assemblages. The Wilson
Journal of Ornithology, 125(3), 526-533.
Gerber, B. D., Arrigo-Nelson, S., Karpanty, S. M., Kotschwar, M., & Wright, P. C. (2012). Spatial
Ecology of the Endangered Milne-Edwards’ Sifaka (Propithecus edwardsi): Do Logging and
Season Affect Home Range and Daily Ranging Patterns?. International Journal of
Primatology, 33(2), 305-321.
Getz, W. M., & Wilmers, C. C. (2004). A local nearest‐neighbor convex‐hull construction of home
ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography, 27(4), 489-505.
Getz, W. M., S. Fortmann-Roe, P. C. Cross, A. J. Lyons, S. J. Ryan, and C. C. Wilmers. (2007).
LoCoH: Nonparameteric Kernel Methods for Constructing Home Ranges and Utilization
Distributions. Plos One 2.
Ha, J. C., Butler, A., & Ha, R. R. (2010). Reduction of first-year survival threatens the viability of
the Mariana Crow Corvus kubaryi population on Rota, CNMI. Bird Conservation
International, 20(04), 335-342.
Ha, R.R, Morton, J.M., Ha, J.C., Berry, L., Plentovich, S. (2011). Nest site selection and
consequences for reproductive success of the endangered Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi).
Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 123: 236-242.
Haché, S., Bayne, E. M., & Villard, M. A. (2014). Postharvest regeneration, sciurid abundance, and
postfledging survival and movements in an Ovenbird population. The Condor, 116(1), 102-
112.
Haines, A. M., Hernández, F., Henke, S. E., & Bingham, R. L. (2009). A method for determining
asymptotes of home-range area curves. In Proceedings of the National Quail
Symposium (Vol. 6, pp. 489-498).
Heinrich, B. (1988). Winter foraging at carcasses by three sympatric corvids, with emphasis on
recruitment by the raven, Corvus corax. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 23(3), 141-
156.
Heinrich, B. (2014). Ravens in winter. Simon and Schuster.
Heinsohn, R. G. (1991). Slow learning of foraging skills and extended parental care in
cooperatively breeding White-winged choughs. American Naturalist, 864-881. doi:
10.1086/285198
83
Heinsohn, R. G., Cockbu, A., and Cunningham, R. B. (1988). Foraging, delayed maturation, and
advantages of cooperative breeding in White‐winged Choughs, Corcorax
melanorhamphos. Ethology, 77(3), 177-186.
Heise, C. D., and Moore, F. R. (2003). Age-related differences in foraging efficiency, molt, and fat
deposition of Gray Catbirds prior to autumn migration. Condor, 105(3), 496-504. doi:
10.1650/7183
Holzhaider, J. C., Sibley, M. D., Taylor, A. H., Singh, P. J., Gray, R. D., & Hunt, G. R. (2011). The
social structure of New Caledonian crows. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 83-92.
Holzhaider, J.C., Hunt, G.R. and Gray, R.D. (2010a). The development of pandanus tool
manufacture in wild New Caledonian crows. Behaviour 147, 553-586. doi:
10.1163/000579510X12629536366284
Holzhaider, J.C., Hunt, G.R. and Gray, R.D. (2010b). Social learning in New Caledonian crows.
Learning and Behaviour. 38, 206-219. doi: 10.3758/LB.38.3.206
Hooten, M. B., Hanks, E. M., Johnson, D. S., & Alldredge, M. W. (2013). Reconciling resource
utilization and resource selection functions. Journal of Animal Ecology, 82(6), 1146-1154.
Hunt, G. R., Sakuma, F., and Shibata, Y. (2002). New Caledonian crows drop candle-nuts onto rock
from communally-used forks on branches. Emu, 102(3), 283-290. doi: 10.1071/MU01037.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24
March 2017.
Jahn, A. E., Levey, D. J., Mamani, A. M., Saldias, M., Alcoba, A., Ledezma, M. J., Flores, B.,
Vidoz, J. Q., and Hilarion, F. (2010). Seasonal differences in rainfall, food availability, and
the foraging behavior of Tropical Kingbirds in the southern Amazon Basin. Journal of Field
Ornithology, 81(4), 340-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2010.00290.x.
Jenkins, J.M. (1983). The native forest birds of Guam. Washington: American Ornithologists’
Union. Ornithological Monograph 31.
Jetz, W., Carbone, C., Fulford, J., & Brown, J. H. (2004). The scaling of animal space
use. Science, 306(5694), 266-268.
Johnson, M. D. (2007). Measuring habitat quality: a review. The Condor, 109(3), 489-504.
Jones, J. (2001). Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. The auk, 118(2), 557-
562.
Karr, J. R. (1976). Seasonality, resource availability, and community diversity in tropical bird
communities. American Naturalist, 973-994. doi: 10.1086/283121.
84
Kjellander, P., Hewison, A. J. M., Liberg, O., Angibault, J. M., Bideau, E., & Cargnelutti, B.
(2004). Experimental evidence for density-dependence of home-range size in roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus L.): a comparison of two long-term studies. Oecologia, 139(3), 478-
485.
Kroner, A., Ha, R.R. (2017). An update of the breeding population status of the critically
endangered Mariana Crow Corvus kubaryi on Rota, Northern Mariana Islands 2013–
2014. Bird Conservation International, 1-7.
Lack, D. (1954). The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lander, M.A., and C.P. Guard (2003) Creation of a 50-Year Rainfall Database, Annual Rainfall
Climatology, and Annual Rainfall Distribution Map for Guam. Water and Environmental
Research Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam, Technical Report No. 102,
June 2003.
Lawrence, J.M. (1976). Organic composition and energy content of the hepatopancreas of hermit
crabs (Coenobita) from Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands (Decapoda, Paguridea).
Crustaceana, 31(2), 113-118.
López‐Bao, J. V., Rodríguez, A., Delibes, M., Fedriani, J. M., Calzada, J., Ferreras, P., &
Palomares, F. (2014). Revisiting food‐based models of territoriality in solitary
predators. Journal of Animal Ecology, 83(4), 934-942.
Macdonald, D. W., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2015). Patchwork planet: the resource dispersion
hypothesis, society, and the ecology of life. Journal of Zoology, 295(2), 75-107.
MacLean, A. A. (1986). Age-specific foraging ability and the evolution of deferred breeding in 3
species of gulls. The Wilson Bulletin, 98(2), 267-279.
Madge, S., and Burn, H. (1994). Crows and Jays. Princeton University Press.
Maher, C. R., & Lott, D. F. (2000). A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within
vertebrate species. The American Midland Naturalist, 143(1), 1-29.
Maness, T. J., & Anderson, D. J. (2013). Predictors of juvenile survival in birds. Ornithological
Monographs, 78(1), 1-55.
Marchetti, K., and Price, T. (1989). Differences in the foraging of juvenile and adult birds: the
importance of developmental constraints. Biological Reviews, 64(1), 51-70. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-185X.1989.tb00638.x.
Martin, K. (1995). Patterns and mechanisms for age-dependent reproduction and survival in
birds. American Zoologist, 35(4), 340-348.
85
Martin, T.E. (2015). Age-related mortality explains life history strategies of tropical and temperate
songbirds. Science 349.6251, 966-970.
Mayor, S. J., Schneider, D. C., Schaefer, J. A., & Mahoney, S. P. (2009). Habitat selection at
multiple scales. Ecoscience, 16(2), 238-247.
McLoughlin, P. D. & Ferguson, S. H. (2000). A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps
explain variation in home range size. Ecoscience, 7(2), 123-130.
Michael, G. A. (1987). Notes on the breeding biology and ecology of the Mariana or Guam Crow.
Avicultural Magazine, 93(2), 73-82.
Mitchell, M. S., & Powell, R. A. (2004). A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of
spatially distributed resources. Ecological Modelling, 177(1), 209-232.
Mobæk, R., Mysterud, A., Egil Loe, L., Holand, Ø., & Austrheim, G. (2009). Density dependent
and temporal variability in habitat selection by a large herbivore; an experimental
approach. Oikos, 118(2), 209-218.
Morris, D.W. (2003). Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection.
Oecologia, 136(1), 1-13.
Morton, J.M., Plentovich, S., and Sharp, T. (1999). Reproduction and juvenile dispersal of Mariana
crows (Corvus kubaryi) on Rota, 1996–1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands
Ecoregion, Honolulu, HI.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858.
Naef-Daenzer, B., & Grüebler, M. U. (2008). Post-fledging range use of Great Tit Parus major
families in relation to chick body condition. Ardea, 96(2), 181-190.
Naef‐Daenzer, B., & Grüebler, M. U. (2016). Post‐fledging survival of altricial birds: ecological
determinants and adaptation. Journal of Field Ornithology, 87(3), 227-250.
Nafus, D. and Schreiner, I. (1989). Biological Control Activities in the Mariana Islands from 1911
to 1988. Micronesica 22(1), 65-106.
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and
publication bias. Behavioral Ecology, 15(6), 1044-1045.
Natasha Vanderhoff, E., and Eason, P. K. (2008). Influence of environmental variables on foraging
by juvenile American Robins. Journal of Field Ornithology, 79(2), 186-192. doi:
10.1111/j.1557-9263.2008.00161.x.
86
National Research Council (U.S.), Pacific Science Board, Invertebrate Consultants Committee for
the Pacific, C.E. Pemberton. (1954). Invertebrate Consultants Committee for the Pacific,
Report for 1949-1954. National Academies, 1954.
Newton, I. (1998). Population limitation in birds. Academic press.
Olson, S.L. and M.J. Rauzon. (2011). The Extinct Wake Island Rail Gallirallus wakensis: A
comprehensive species account based on museum specimens and archival records. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 123(4): 663-689.
Penteriani, V., Ferrer, M., and Delgado, M. D. M. (2011). Floater strategies and dynamics in birds,
and their importance in conservation biology: towards an understanding of nonbreeders in
avian populations. Animal Conservation, 14(3): 233-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
1795.2010.00433.x.
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D and R Core Team (2017). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear
Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-131, <URL: https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=nlme>.
Piper, W. H. (2011). Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 65(7), 1329-1351.
Plentovich, S., Morton, J. M., Bart, J., Camp, J. R, Lusk, M., Johnson, N. and Vanderwerf, E.
(2005). Population trends of Mariana crow Corvus kubaryi on Rota, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Bird Conservation International, 15(02): 211–224.
Pyle, P., Howell, S.N.G., Yunick, R.P., DeSante, D.F. (1987). Identification Guide to North American
Passerines. Slate Creek Press: Bolinas, CA.
Rechetelo, J., Grice, A., Reside, A. E., Hardesty, B. D., & Moloney, J. (2016). Movement patterns,
home range size and habitat selection of an endangered resource tracking species, the Black-
throated finch (Poephila cincta cincta). PloS one, 11(11), e0167254.
Roff, D. A., Remeš, V., & Martin, T. E. (2005). The evolution of fledging age in songbirds. Journal
of evolutionary biology, 18(6), 1425-1433.
Rolando, A. (2002). On the ecology of home range in birds. Revue d'écologie, 57(1), 53-73.
Rutz, C., and J.J. St Clair. (2012). The evolutionary origins and ecological context of tool use in
New Caledonian crows. Behavioural processes, 89(2): 153-165. doi:
10.1016/j.beproc.2011.11.005.
Samuel, M. D., & Fuller, M. R. (1994). Wildlife radiotelemetry.
Sanderson, G. C. (1966). The study of mammal movements: a review. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 215-235.
87
Savidge, J. A. (1987). Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced
snake. Ecology, 68(3), 660-668.
Schwarzkopf, L., & Alford, R. (2002). Nomadic Movement in Tropical Toads. Oikos, 96(3), 492-
506. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3547074.
Signer, J. and Balkenhol, N. (2015), Reproducible home ranges (rhr): A new, user-friendly R
package for analyses of wildlife telemetry data. Wildlife Society Bulletin. doi:
10.1002/wsb.539.
Slagsvold, T., and Wiebe, K. L. (2011). Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging
niche. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567):
969-977. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0343.
Steadman, W.D. (2006). Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Sullivan, K. A. (1988). Ontogeny of time budgets in yellow-eyed juncos: adaptation to ecological
constraints. Ecology, 69(1): 118-124. doi: 10.2307/1943166
Sussman, A. F., Ha, R. R. and Henry, H. (2015). Evaluating the attitudes, knowledge, and practices
affecting endangered birds and the potential for a landowners incentive program on Rota,
CNMI. Oryx, Available on doi:10.1017/S0030605313000884, pages 1-8.
Szabo, J. K., Khwaja, N., Garnett, S. T., and Butchart, S. H. (2012). Global patterns and drivers of
avian extinctions at the species and subspecies level. PloS one, 7(10): e47080. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0047080.
Tebbich, S., Taborsky, M., Fessl, B., and Blomqvist, D. (2001). Do woodpecker finches acquire
tool-use by social learning? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences, 268(1482): 2189-2193. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1738.
Tomback, D.F. (1986). Observations on the behavior and ecology of the Mariana crow. Condor 88:
398-401. doi: 10.2307/1368898.
USFWS (2005). Draft revised recovery plan for the Aga or Mariana Crow, Corvus kubaryi.
Portland, Oregon USA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Van Moorter, B., Visscher, D., Benhamou, S., Börger, L., Boyce, M. S., & Gaillard, J. M. (2009).
Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos, 118(5),
641-652.
Van Moorter, B., Visscher, D., Herfindal, I., Basille, M., & Mysterud, A. (2013). Inferring
behavioural mechanisms in habitat selection studies getting the null‐hypothesis right for
functional and familiarity responses. Ecography, 36(3), 323-330.
88
van Overveld, T., Adriaensen, F., & Matthysen, E. (2011). Postfledging family space use in great
tits in relation to environmental and parental characteristics. Behavioral Ecology, 22(4),
899-907.
Wanless, R.M. and Hokey, P.A.R. (2009). Natural history and behavior of the Aldabra Rail
(Dryolimnas [Cuvieri] Aldabranus). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 120(1): 50-61. doi:
10.1676/06-113.1
Webb, W. C., Boarman, W. I., & Rotenberry, J. T. (2009). Movements of juvenile common ravens
in an arid landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(1), 72-81.
Wiewel, A. S., Yackel Adams, A. A. and Rodda, G. H. (2009). Distribution, density, and biomass of
introduced small mammals in the southern Mariana Islands. Pacific Science, 9: 205–222.
doi: 10.2984/049.063.0204.
Wiles, J.C., Rodda, G.H., Fritts, T. H., & Taisacan, E. M. (1990). Abundance and habitat use of
reptiles on Rota, Mariana Islands. Micronesica, 23(2), 153-166.
Wolf, M., Frair, J., Merrill, E., & Turchin, P. (2009). The attraction of the known: the importance of
spatial familiarity in habitat selection in wapiti Cervus elaphus. Ecography, 32(3), 401-410.
Wunderle, J. M. (1991). Age-specific foraging proficiency in birds. Current ornithology, 8:273-324.
Xu, J. L., Zhang, X. H., Sun, Q. H., Zheng, G. M., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Z. W. (2009). Home range,
daily movements and site fidelity of male Reeves's pheasants Syrmaticus reevesii in the
Dabie Mountains, central China. Wildlife Biology, 15(3), 338-344.
Yoerg, S. I. (1994). Development of foraging behaviour in the Eurasian dipper, Cinclus cinclus,
from fledging until dispersal. Animal Behaviour, 47(3): 577-588. doi:
10.1006/anbe.1994.1081.
Yoerg, S. I. (1998). Foraging behavior predicts age at independence in juvenile Eurasian dippers
(Cinclus cinclus). Behavioral Ecology, 9(5): 471-477. doi: 10.1093/beheco/9.5.471.
Zarones, L., Sussman, A., Morton, J.M., Plentovich, S., Faegre, S., Aguon, C., Amar, A, and Ha,
R.R. (2014). Populations status and nest success of the critically endangered Mariana crow
(Corvus kubaryi) on Rota, Northern Mariana Islands. Bird Conservation International,
available on CJO2014. doi:10.1017/S0959270914000045.
Zárybnická, M., Riegert, J., Brejšková, L., Šindelář, J., Kouba, M., Hanel, J., ... & Šťastný, K.
(2015). Factors affecting growth of Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) nestlings: prey
abundance, sex and hatching order. PloS one, 10(10), e0138177.